Albert Einstein Reference Archive

ALBERT EINSTEIN REFERENCE ARCHIVE
RELATIVITY: THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY

BY ALBERT EINSTEIN
Written: 1916 (this revised edition: 1924)

Source: Relativity: The Special and General Theory (1920)
Publisher: Methuen & Co Ltd
First Published: December, 1916
Translated: Robert W. Lawson (Authorised translation)
Transcription/Markup: Brian Basgen <brian@marxists.org>
Transcription to text: Gregory B. Newby <gbnewby@petascale.org>
Thanks to: Einstein Reference Archive (marxists.org)
The Einstein Reference Archive is online at:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/index.htm
Transcriber note: This file is a plain text rendition of HTML. Because many
equations cannot be presented effectively in plain text, images are supplied for
many equations and for all figures and tables.
CONTENTS
Preface
Part I: The Special Theory of Relativity
01. Physical Meaning of Geometrical Propositions 02. The System of Co-ordinates
03. Space and Time in Classical Mechanics 04. The Galileian System of Co-
ordinates 05. The Principle of Relativity (in the Restricted Sense) 06. The Theorem
of the Addition of Velocities employed in Classical Mechanics 07. The Apparent
Incompatability of the Law of Propagation of Light with the Principle of Relativity
08. On the Idea of Time in Physics 09. The Relativity of Simultaneity 10. On the
Relativity of the Conception of Distance 11. The Lorentz Transformation 12. The
Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion 13. Theorem of the Addition
of Velocities. The Experiment of Fizeau 14. The Hueristic Value of the Theory of
Relativity 15. General Results of the Theory 16. Expereince and the Special Theory
of Relativity 17. Minkowski's Four-dimensial Space
Part II: The General Theory of Relativity
18. Special and General Principle of Relativity 19. The Gravitational Field 20. The
Equality of Inertial and Gravitational Mass as an Argument for the General
Postulate of Relativity 21. In What Respects are the Foundations of Classical
Mechanics and of the Special Theory of Relativity Unsatisfactory? 22. A Few
Inferences from the General Principle of Relativity 23. Behaviour of Clocks and
Measuring-Rods on a Rotating Body of Reference 24. Euclidean and non-
Euclidean Continuum 25. Gaussian Co-ordinates 26. The Space-Time Continuum
of the Speical Theory of Relativity Considered as a Euclidean Continuum 27. The
Space-Time Continuum of the General Theory of Relativity is Not a Eculidean
Continuum 28. Exact Formulation of the General Principle of Relativity 29. The
Solution of the Problem of Gravitation on the Basis of the General Principle of
Relativity
Part III: Considerations on the Universe as a Whole
30. Cosmological Difficulties of Netwon's Theory 31. The Possibility of a "Finite"
and yet "Unbounded" Universe 32. The Structure of Space According to the
General Theory of Relativity
Appendices:
01. Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation (sup. ch. 11) 02. Minkowski's
Four-Dimensional Space ("World") (sup. ch 17) 03. The Experimental
Confirmation of the General Theory of Relativity 04. The Structure of Space
According to the General Theory of Relativity (sup. ch 32) 05. Relativity and the
Problem of Space
Note: The fifth Appendix was added by Einstein at the time of the fifteenth re-
printing of this book; and as a result is still under copyright restrictions so cannot
be added without the permission of the publisher.
PREFACE
(December, 1916)
The present book is intended, as far as possible, to give an exact insight into the
theory of Relativity to those readers who, from a general scientific and
philosophical point of view, are interested in the theory, but who are not conversant
with the mathematical apparatus of theoretical physics. The work presumes a
standard of education corresponding to that of a university matriculation
examination, and, despite the shortness of the book, a fair amount of patience and
force of will on the part of the reader. The author has spared himself no pains in his
endeavour to present the main ideas in the simplest and most intelligible form, and
on the whole, in the sequence and connection in which they actually originated. In
the interest of clearness, it appeared to me inevitable that I should repeat myself
frequently, without paying the slightest attention to the elegance of the
presentation. I adhered scrupulously to the precept of that brilliant theoretical
physicist L. Boltzmann, according to whom matters of elegance ought to be left to
the tailor and to the cobbler. I make no pretence of having withheld from the reader
difficulties which are inherent to the subject. On the other hand, I have purposely
treated the empirical physical foundations of the theory in a "step-motherly"
fashion, so that readers unfamiliar with physics may not feel like the wanderer who
was unable to see the forest for the trees. May the book bring some one a few
happy hours of suggestive thought!
December, 1916
A. EINSTEIN
PART I
THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
PHYSICAL MEANING OF GEOMETRICAL PROPOSITIONS
In your schooldays most of you who read this book made acquaintance with the
noble building of Euclid's geometry, and you remember — perhaps with more
respect than love — the magnificent structure, on the lofty staircase of which you
were chased about for uncounted hours by conscientious teachers. By reason of our
past experience, you would certainly regard everyone with disdain who should
pronounce even the most out-of-the-way proposition of this science to be untrue.
But perhaps this feeling of proud certainty would leave you immediately if some
one were to ask you: "What, then, do you mean by the assertion that these
propositions are true?" Let us proceed to give this question a little consideration.
Geometry sets out form certain conceptions such as "plane," "point," and "straight
line," with which we are able to associate more or less definite ideas, and from
certain simple propositions (axioms) which, in virtue of these ideas, we are inclined
to accept as "true." Then, on the basis of a logical process, the justification of
which we feel ourselves compelled to admit, all remaining propositions are shown
to follow from those axioms, i.e. they are proven. A proposition is then correct
("true") when it has been derived in the recognised manner from the axioms. The
question of "truth" of the individual geometrical propositions is thus reduced to one
of the "truth" of the axioms. Now it has long been known that the last question is
not only unanswerable by the methods of geometry, but that it is in itself entirely
without meaning. We cannot ask whether it is true that only one straight line goes
through two points. We can only say that Euclidean geometry deals with things
called "straight lines," to each of which is ascribed the property of being uniquely
determined by two points situated on it. The concept "true" does not tally with the
assertions of pure geometry, because by the word "true" we are eventually in the
habit of designating always the correspondence with a "real" object; geometry,
however, is not concerned with the relation of the ideas involved in it to objects of
experience, but only with the logical connection of these ideas among themselves.
It is not difficult to understand why, in spite of this, we feel constrained to call the
propositions of geometry "true." Geometrical ideas correspond to more or less
exact objects in nature, and these last are undoubtedly the exclusive cause of the
genesis of those ideas. Geometry ought to refrain from such a course, in order to
give to its structure the largest possible logical unity. The practice, for example, of
seeing in a "distance" two marked positions on a practically rigid body is
something which is lodged deeply in our habit of thought. We are accustomed
further to regard three points as being situated on a straight line, if their apparent
positions can be made to coincide for observation with one eye, under suitable
choice of our place of observation.
If, in pursuance of our habit of thought, we now supplement the propositions of
Euclidean geometry by the single proposition that two points on a practically rigid
body always correspond to the same distance (line-interval), independently of any
changes in position to which we may subject the body, the propositions of
Euclidean geometry then resolve themselves into propositions on the possible
relative position of practically rigid bodies.* Geometry which has been
supplemented in this way is then to be treated as a branch of physics. We can now
legitimately ask as to the "truth" of geometrical propositions interpreted in this
way, since we are justified in asking whether these propositions are satisfied for
those real things we have associated with the geometrical ideas. In less exact terms
we can express this by saying that by the "truth" of a geometrical proposition in this
sense we understand its validity for a construction with rule and compasses.
Of course the conviction of the "truth" of geometrical propositions in this sense is
founded exclusively on rather incomplete experience. For the present we shall
assume the "truth" of the geometrical propositions, then at a later stage (in the
general theory of relativity) we shall see that this "truth" is limited, and we shall
consider the extent of its limitation.
Notes
*) It follows that a natural object is associated also with a straight line. Three points
A, B and C on a rigid body thus lie in a straight line when the points A and C being
given, B is chosen such that the sum of the distances AB and BC is as short as
possible. This incomplete suggestion will suffice for the present purpose.
THE SYSTEM OF CO-ORDINATES
On the basis of the physical interpretation of distance which has been indicated, we
are also in a position to establish the distance between two points on a rigid body
by means of measurements. For this purpose we require a " distance " (rod S)
which is to be used once and for all, and which we employ as a standard measure.
If, now, A and B are two points on a rigid body, we can construct the line joining
them according to the rules of geometry ; then, starting from A, we can mark off
the distance S time after time until we reach B. The number of these operations
required is the numerical measure of the distance AB. This is the basis of all
measurement of length. *
Every description of the scene of an event or of the position of an object in space is
based on the specification of the point on a rigid body (body of reference) with
which that event or object coincides. This applies not only to scientific description,
but also to everyday life. If I analyse the place specification " Times Square, New
York," **A I arrive at the following result. The earth is the rigid body to which the
specification of place refers; " Times Square, New York," is a well-defined point,
to which a name has been assigned, and with which the event coincides in
space.**B
This primitive method of place specification deals only with places on the surface
of rigid bodies, and is dependent on the existence of points on this surface which
are distinguishable from each other. But we can free ourselves from both of these
limitations without altering the nature of our specification of position. If, for
instance, a cloud is hovering over Times Square, then we can determine its position
relative to the surface of the earth by erecting a pole perpendicularly on the Square,
so that it reaches the cloud. The length of the pole measured with the standard
measuring-rod, combined with the specification of the position of the foot of the
pole, supplies us with a complete place specification. On the basis of this
illustration, we are able to see the manner in which a refinement of the conception
of position has been developed.
(a) We imagine the rigid body, to which the place specification is referred,
supplemented in such a manner that the object whose position we require is reached
by. the completed rigid body.
(b) In locating the position of the object, we make use of a number (here the length
of the pole measured with the measuring-rod) instead of designated points of
reference.
(c) We speak of the height of the cloud even when the pole which reaches the cloud
has not been erected. By means of optical observations of the cloud from different
positions on the ground, and taking into account the properties of the propagation
of light, we determine the length of the pole we should have required in order to
reach the cloud.
From this consideration we see that it will be advantageous if, in the description of
position, it should be possible by means of numerical measures to make ourselves
independent of the existence of marked positions (possessing names) on the rigid
body of reference. In the physics of measurement this is attained by the application
of the Cartesian system of co-ordinates.
This consists of three plane surfaces perpendicular to each other and rigidly
attached to a rigid body. Referred to a system of co-ordinates, the scene of any
event will be determined (for the main part) by the specification of the lengths of
the three perpendiculars or co-ordinates (x, y, z) which can be dropped from the
scene of the event to those three plane surfaces. The lengths of these three
perpendiculars can be determined by a series of manipulations with rigid
measuring-rods performed according to the rules and methods laid down by
Euclidean geometry.
In practice, the rigid surfaces which constitute the system of co-ordinates are
generally not available ; furthermore, the magnitudes of the co-ordinates are not
actually determined by constructions with rigid rods, but by indirect means. If the
results of physics and astronomy are to maintain their clearness, the physical
meaning of specifications of position must always be sought in accordance with the
above considerations. ***
We thus obtain the following result: Every description of events in space involves
the use of a rigid body to which such events have to be referred. The resulting
relationship takes for granted that the laws of Euclidean geometry hold for
"distances;" the "distance" being represented physically by means of the convention
of two marks on a rigid body.
Notes
* Here we have assumed that there is nothing left over i.e. that the measurement
gives a whole number. This difficulty is got over by the use of divided measuring-
rods, the introduction of which does not demand any fundamentally new method.
**A Einstein used "Potsdamer Platz, Berlin" in the original text. In the authorised
translation this was supplemented with "Tranfalgar Square, London". We have
changed this to "Times Square, New York", as this is the most well
known/identifiable location to English speakers in the present day. [Note by the
janitor.]
**B It is not necessary here to investigate further the significance of the expression
"coincidence in space." This conception is sufficiently obvious to ensure that
differences of opinion are scarcely likely to arise as to its applicability in practice.
*** A refinement and modification of these views does not become necessary until
we come to deal with the general theory of relativity, treated in the second part of
this book.
SPACE AND TIME IN CLASSICAL MECHANICS
The purpose of mechanics is to describe how bodies change their position in space
with "time." I should load my conscience with grave sins against the sacred spirit of
lucidity were I to formulate the aims of mechanics in this way, without serious
reflection and detailed explanations. Let us proceed to disclose these sins.
It is not clear what is to be understood here by "position" and "space." I stand at the
window of a railway carriage which is travelling uniformly, and drop a stone on the
embankment, without throwing it. Then, disregarding the influence of the air
resistance, I see the stone descend in a straight line. A pedestrian who observes the
misdeed from the footpath notices that the stone falls to earth in a parabolic curve. I
now ask: Do the "positions" traversed by the stone lie "in reality" on a straight line
or on a parabola? Moreover, what is meant here by motion "in space" ? From the
considerations of the previous section the answer is self-evident. In the first place
we entirely shun the vague word "space," of which, we must honestly
acknowledge, we cannot form the slightest conception, and we replace it by
"motion relative to a practically rigid body of reference." The positions relative to
the body of reference (railway carriage or embankment) have already been defined
in detail in the preceding section. If instead of " body of reference " we insert "
system of co-ordinates," which is a useful idea for mathematical description, we are
in a position to say : The stone traverses a straight line relative to a system of co-
ordinates rigidly attached to the carriage, but relative to a system of co-ordinates
rigidly attached to the ground (embankment) it describes a parabola. With the aid
of this example it is clearly seen that there is no such thing as an independently
existing trajectory (lit. "path-curve"*), but only a trajectory relative to a particular
body of reference.
In order to have a complete description of the motion, we must specify how the
body alters its position with time ; i.e. for every point on the trajectory it must be
stated at what time the body is situated there. These data must be supplemented by
such a definition of time that, in virtue of this definition, these time-values can be
regarded essentially as magnitudes (results of measurements) capable of
observation. If we take our stand on the ground of classical mechanics, we can
satisfy this requirement for our illustration in the following manner. We imagine
two clocks of identical construction ; the man at the railway-carriage window is
holding one of them, and the man on the footpath the other. Each of the observers
determines the position on his own reference-body occupied by the stone at each
tick of the clock he is holding in his hand. In this connection we have not taken
account of the inaccuracy involved by the finiteness of the velocity of propagation
of light. With this and with a second difficulty prevailing here we shall have to deal
in detail later.
Notes
*) That is, a curve along which the body moves.
THE GALILEIAN SYSTEM OF CO-ORDINATES
As is well known, the fundamental law of the mechanics of Galilei-Newton, which
is known as the law of inertia, can be stated thus: A body removed sufficiently far
from other bodies continues in a state of rest or of uniform motion in a straight line.
This law not only says something about the motion of the bodies, but it also
indicates the reference-bodies or systems of coordinates, permissible in mechanics,
which can be used in mechanical description. The visible fixed stars are bodies for
which the law of inertia certainly holds to a high degree of approximation. Now if
we use a system of co-ordinates which is rigidly attached to the earth, then, relative
to this system, every fixed star describes a circle of immense radius in the course of
an astronomical day, a result which is opposed to the statement of the law of
inertia. So that if we adhere to this law we must refer these motions only to systems
of coordinates relative to which the fixed stars do not move in a circle. A system of
co-ordinates of which the state of motion is such that the law of inertia holds
relative to it is called a " Galileian system of co-ordinates." The laws of the
mechanics of Galflei-Newton can be regarded as valid only for a Galileian system
of co-ordinates.
THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY (IN THE RESTRICTED SENSE)
In order to attain the greatest possible clearness, let us return to our example of the
railway carriage supposed to be travelling uniformly. We call its motion a uniform
translation ("uniform" because it is of constant velocity and direction, " translation
" because although the carriage changes its position relative to the embankment yet
it does not rotate in so doing). Let us imagine a raven flying through the air in such
a manner that its motion, as observed from the embankment, is uniform and in a
straight line. If we were to observe the flying raven from the moving railway
carriage. we should find that the motion of the raven would be one of different
velocity and direction, but that it would still be uniform and in a straight line.
Expressed in an abstract manner we may say : If a mass m is moving uniformly in a
straight line with respect to a co-ordinate system K, then it will also be moving
uniformly and in a straight line relative to a second co-ordinate system K1 provided
that the latter is executing a uniform translatory motion with respect to K. In
accordance with the discussion contained in the preceding section, it follows that:
If K is a Galileian co-ordinate system. then every other co-ordinate system K' is a
Galileian one, when, in relation to K, it is in a condition of uniform motion of
translation. Relative to K1 the mechanical laws of Galilei-Newton hold good
exactly as they do with respect to K.
We advance a step farther in our generalisation when we express the tenet thus: If,
relative to K, K1 is a uniformly moving co-ordinate system devoid of rotation, then
natural phenomena run their course with respect to K1 according to exactly the
same general laws as with respect to K. This statement is called the principle of
relativity (in the restricted sense).
As long as one was convinced that all natural phenomena were capable of
representation with the help of classical mechanics, there was no need to doubt the
validity of this principle of relativity. But in view of the more recent development
of electrodynamics and optics it became more and more evident that classical
mechanics affords an insufficient foundation for the physical description of all
natural phenomena. At this juncture the question of the validity of the principle of
relativity became ripe for discussion, and it did not appear impossible that the
answer to this question might be in the negative.
Nevertheless, there are two general facts which at the outset speak very much in
favour of the validity of the principle of relativity. Even though classical mechanics
does not supply us with a sufficiently broad basis for the theoretical presentation of
all physical phenomena, still we must grant it a considerable measure of " truth,"
since it supplies us with the actual motions of the heavenly bodies with a delicacy
of detail little short of wonderful. The principle of relativity must therefore apply
with great accuracy in the domain of mechanics. But that a principle of such broad
generality should hold with such exactness in one domain of phenomena, and yet
should be invalid for another, is a priori not very probable.
We now proceed to the second argument, to which, moreover, we shall return later.
If the principle of relativity (in the restricted sense) does not hold, then the
Galileian co-ordinate systems K, K1, K2, etc., which are moving uniformly relative
to each other, will not be equivalent for the description of natural phenomena. In
this case we should be constrained to believe that natural laws are capable of being
formulated in a particularly simple manner, and of course only on condition that,
from amongst all possible Galileian co-ordinate systems, we should have chosen
one (K[0]) of a particular state of motion as our body of reference. We should then
be justified (because of its merits for the description of natural phenomena) in
calling this system " absolutely at rest," and all other Galileian systems K " in
motion." If, for instance, our embankment were the system K[0] then our railway
carriage would be a system K, relative to which less simple laws would hold than
with respect to K[0]. This diminished simplicity would be due to the fact that the
carriage K would be in motion (i.e."really")with respect to K[0]. In the general
laws of nature which have been formulated with reference to K, the magnitude and
direction of the velocity of the carriage would necessarily play a part. We should
expect, for instance, that the note emitted by an organpipe placed with its axis
parallel to the direction of travel would be different from that emitted if the axis of
the pipe were placed perpendicular to this direction.
Now in virtue of its motion in an orbit round the sun, our earth is comparable with
a railway carriage travelling with a velocity of about 30 kilometres per second. If
the principle of relativity were not valid we should therefore expect that the
direction of motion of the earth at any moment would enter into the laws of nature,
and also that physical systems in their behaviour would be dependent on the
orientation in space with respect to the earth. For owing to the alteration in
direction of the velocity of revolution of the earth in the course of a year, the earth
cannot be at rest relative to the hypothetical system K[0] throughout the whole
year. However, the most careful observations have never revealed such anisotropic
properties in terrestrial physical space, i.e. a physical non-equivalence of different
directions. This is very powerful argument in favour of the principle of relativity.
THE THEOREM OF THE ADDITION OF VELOCITIES EMPLOYED IN
CLASSICAL MECHANICS
Let us suppose our old friend the railway carriage to be travelling along the rails
with a constant velocity v, and that a man traverses the length of the carriage in the
direction of travel with a velocity w. How quickly or, in other words, with what
velocity W does the man advance relative to the embankment during the process ?
The only possible answer seems to result from the following consideration: If the
man were to stand still for a second, he would advance relative to the embankment
through a distance v equal numerically to the velocity of the carriage. As a
consequence of his walking, however, he traverses an additional distance w relative
to the carriage, and hence also relative to the embankment, in this second, the
distance w being numerically equal to the velocity with which he is walking. Thus
in total be covers the distance W=v+w relative to the embankment in the second
considered. We shall see later that this result, which expresses the theorem of the
addition of velocities employed in classical mechanics, cannot be maintained ; in
other words, the law that we have just written down does not hold in reality. For the
time being, however, we shall assume its correctness.
THE APPARENT INCOMPATIBILITY OF THE LAW OF PROPAGATION
OF LIGHT WITH THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY
There is hardly a simpler law in physics than that according to which light is
propagated in empty space. Every child at school knows, or believes he knows, that
this propagation takes place in straight lines with a velocity c= 300,000 km./sec. At
all events we know with great exactness that this velocity is the same for all
colours, because if this were not the case, the minimum of emission would not be
observed simultaneously for different colours during the eclipse of a fixed star by
its dark neighbour. By means of similar considerations based on observations of
double stars, the Dutch astronomer De Sitter was also able to show that the velocity
of propagation of light cannot depend on the velocity of motion of the body
emitting the light. The assumption that this velocity of propagation is dependent on
the direction "in space" is in itself improbable.
In short, let us assume that the simple law of the constancy of the velocity of light c
(in vacuum) is justifiably believed by the child at school. Who would imagine that
this simple law has plunged the conscientiously thoughtful physicist into the
greatest intellectual difficulties? Let us consider how these difficulties arise.
Of course we must refer the process of the propagation of light (and indeed every
other process) to a rigid reference-body (co-ordinate system). As such a system let
us again choose our embankment. We shall imagine the air above it to have been
removed. If a ray of light be sent along the embankment, we see from the above
that the tip of the ray will be transmitted with the velocity c relative to the
embankment. Now let us suppose that our railway carriage is again travelling along
the railway lines with the velocity v, and that its direction is the same as that of the
ray of light, but its velocity of course much less. Let us inquire about the velocity
of propagation of the ray of light relative to the carriage. It is obvious that we can
here apply the consideration of the previous section, since the ray of light plays the
part of the man walking along relatively to the carriage. The velocity w of the man
relative to the embankment is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the
embankment. w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and we
have
w = c-v.
The velocity of propagation ot a ray of light relative to the carriage thus comes cut
smaller than c.
But this result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth in
Section V. For, like every other general law of nature, the law of the transmission
of light in vacuo [in vacuum] must, according to the principle of relativity, be the
same for the railway carriage as reference-body as when the rails are the body of
reference. But, from our above consideration, this would appear to be impossible. If
every ray of light is propagated relative to the embankment with the velocity c, then
for this reason it would appear that another law of propagation of light must
necessarily hold with respect to the carriage — a result contradictory to the
principle of relativity.
In view of this dilemma there appears to be nothing else for it than to abandon
either the principle of relativity or the simple law of the propagation of light in
vacuo. Those of you who have carefully followed the preceding discussion are
almost sure to expect that we should retain the principle of relativity, which appeals
so convincingly to the intellect because it is so natural and simple. The law of the
propagation of light in vacuo would then have to be replaced by a more
complicated law conformable to the principle of relativity. The development of
theoretical physics shows, however, that we cannot pursue this course. The epoch-
making theoretical investigations of H. A. Lorentz on the electrodynamical and
optical phenomena connected with moving bodies show that experience in this
domain leads conclusively to a theory of electromagnetic phenomena, of which the
law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo is a necessary consequence.
Prominent theoretical physicists were theref ore more inclined to reject the
principle of relativity, in spite of the fact that no empirical data had been found
which were contradictory to this principle.
At this juncture the theory of relativity entered the arena. As a result of an analysis
of the physical conceptions of time and space, it became evident that in realily there
is not the least incompatibilitiy between the principle of relativity and the law of
propagation of light, and that by systematically holding fast to both these laws a
logically rigid theory could be arrived at. This theory has been called the special
theory of relativity to distinguish it from the extended theory, with which we shall
deal later. In the following pages we shall present the fundamental ideas of the
special theory of relativity.
ON THE IDEA OF TIME IN PHYSICS
Lightning has struck the rails on our railway embankment at two places A and B far
distant from each other. I make the additional assertion that these two lightning
flashes occurred simultaneously. If I ask you whether there is sense in this
statement, you will answer my question with a decided "Yes." But if I now
approach you with the request to explain to me the sense of the statement more
precisely, you find after some consideration that the answer to this question is not
so easy as it appears at first sight.
After some time perhaps the following answer would occur to you: "The
significance of the statement is clear in itself and needs no further explanation; of
course it would require some consideration if I were to be commissioned to
determine by observations whether in the actual case the two events took place
simultaneously or not." I cannot be satisfied with this answer for the following
reason. Supposing that as a result of ingenious considerations an able meteorologist
were to discover that the lightning must always strike the places A and B
simultaneously, then we should be faced with the task of testing whether or not this
theoretical result is in accordance with the reality. We encounter the same difficulty
with all physical statements in which the conception " simultaneous " plays a part.
The concept does not exist for the physicist until he has the possibility of
discovering whether or not it is fulfilled in an actual case. We thus require a
definition of simultaneity such that this definition supplies us with the method by
means of which, in the present case, he can decide by experiment whether or not
both the lightning strokes occurred simultaneously. As long as this requirement is
not satisfied, I allow myself to be deceived as a physicist (and of course the same
applies if I am not a physicist), when I imagine that I am able to attach a meaning
to the statement of simultaneity. (I would ask the reader not to proceed farther until
he is fully convinced on this point.)
After thinking the matter over for some time you then offer the following
suggestion with which to test simultaneity. By measuring along the rails, the
connecting line AB should be measured up and an observer placed at the mid-point
M of the distance AB. This observer should be supplied with an arrangement (e.g.
two mirrors inclined at 90^0) which allows him visually to observe both places A
and B at the same time. If the observer perceives the two flashes of lightning at the
same time, then they are simultaneous.
I am very pleased with this suggestion, but for all that I cannot regard the matter as
quite settled, because I feel constrained to raise the following objection:
"Your definition would certainly be right, if only I knew that the light by means of
which the observer at M perceives the lightning flashes travels along the length A
arrow M with the same velocity as along the length B arrow M. But an examination
of this supposition would only be possible if we already had at our disposal the
means of measuring time. It would thus appear as though we were moving here in a
logical circle."
After further consideration you cast a somewhat disdainful glance at me — and
rightly so — and you declare:
"I maintain my previous definition nevertheless, because in reality it assumes
absolutely nothing about light. There is only one demand to be made of the
definition of simultaneity, namely, that in every real case it must supply us with an
empirical decision as to whether or not the conception that has to be defined is
fulfilled. That my definition satisfies this demand is indisputable. That light
requires the same time to traverse the path A arrow M as for the path B arrow M is
in reality neither a supposition nor a hypothesis about the physical nature of light,
but a stipulation which I can make of my own freewill in order to arrive at a
definition of simultaneity."
It is clear that this definition can be used to give an exact meaning not only to two
events, but to as many events as we care to choose, and independently of the
positions of the scenes of the events with respect to the body of reference * (here
the railway embankment). We are thus led also to a definition of " time " in
physics. For this purpose we suppose that clocks of identical construction are
placed at the points A, B and C of the railway line (co-ordinate system) and that
they are set in such a manner that the positions of their pointers are simultaneously
(in the above sense) the same. Under these conditions we understand by the " time
" of an event the reading (position of the hands) of that one of these clocks which is
in the immediate vicinity (in space) of the event. In this manner a time-value is
associated with every event which is essentially capable of observation.
This stipulation contains a further physical hypothesis, the validity of which will
hardly be doubted without empirical evidence to the contrary. It has been assumed
that all these clocks go at the same rate if they are of identical construction. Stated
more exactly: When two clocks arranged at rest in different places of a reference-
body are set in such a manner that a particular position of the pointers of the one
clock is simultaneous (in the above sense) with the same position, of the pointers of
the other clock, then identical " settings " are always simultaneous (in the sense of
the above definition).
Notes
*) We suppose further, that, when three events A, B and C occur in different places
in such a manner that A is simultaneous with B and B is simultaneous with C
(simultaneous in the sense of the above definition), then the criterion for the
simultaneity of the pair of events A, C is also satisfied. This assumption is a
physical hypothesis about the the of propagation of light: it must certainly be
fulfilled if we are to maintain the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo.
THE RELATIVITY OF SIMULATNEITY
Up to now our considerations have been referred to a particular body of reference,
which we have styled a " railway embankment." We suppose a very long train
travelling along the rails with the constant velocity v and in the direction indicated
in Fig 1. People travelling in this train will with a vantage view the train as a rigid
reference-body (co-ordinate system); they regard all events in
Fig. 01: file fig01.gif
reference to the train. Then every event which takes place along the line also takes
place at a particular point of the train. Also the definition of simultaneity can be
given relative to the train in exactly the same way as with respect to the
embankment. As a natural consequence, however, the following question arises :
Are two events (e.g. the two strokes of lightning A and B) which are simultaneous
with reference to the railway embankment also simultaneous relatively to the train?
We shall show directly that the answer must be in the negative.
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to be
embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the
lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length A arrow B of the
embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the
train. Let M1 be the mid-point of the distance A arrow B on the travelling train.
Just when the flashes (as judged from the embankment) of lightning occur, this
point M1 naturally coincides with the point M but it moves towards the right in the
diagram with the velocity v of the train. If an observer sitting in the position M1 in
the train did not possess this velocity, then he would remain permanently at M, and
the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning A and B would reach him
simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just where he is situated. Now in reality
(considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is hastening towards the
beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of the beam of light
coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light emitted from B
earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who take the railway train as
their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the lightning flash
B took place earlier than the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the important
result:
Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not
simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity).
Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time ; unless we
are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is no
meaning in a statement of the time of an event.
Now before the advent of the theory of relativity it had always tacitly been assumed
in physics that the statement of time had an absolute significance, i.e. that it is
independent of the state of motion of the body of reference. But we have just seen
that this assumption is incompatible with the most natural definition of
simultaneity; if we discard this assumption, then the conflict between the law of the
propagation of light in vacuo and the principle of relativity (developed in Section 7)
disappears.
We were led to that conflict by the considerations of Section 6, which are now no
longer tenable. In that section we concluded that the man in the carriage, who
traverses the distance w per second relative to the carriage, traverses the same
distance also with respect to the embankment in each second of time. But,
according to the foregoing considerations, the time required by a particular
occurrence with respect to the carriage must not be considered equal to the duration
of the same occurrence as judged from the embankment (as reference-body). Hence
it cannot be contended that the man in walking travels the distance w relative to the
railway line in a time which is equal to one second as judged from the
embankment.
Moreover, the considerations of Section 6 are based on yet a second assumption,
which, in the light of a strict consideration, appears to be arbitrary, although it was
always tacitly made even before the introduction of the theory of relativity.
ON THE RELATIVITY OF THE CONCEPTION OF DISTANCE
Let us consider two particular points on the train * travelling along the
embankment with the velocity v, and inquire as to their distance apart. We already
know that it is necessary to have a body of reference for the measurement of a
distance, with respect to which body the distance can be measured up. It is the
simplest plan to use the train itself as reference-body (co-ordinate system). An
observer in the train measures the interval by marking off his measuring-rod in a
straight line (e.g. along the floor of the carriage) as many times as is necessary to
take him from the one marked point to the other. Then the number which tells us
how often the rod has to be laid down is the required distance.
It is a different matter when the distance has to be judged from the railway line.
Here the following method suggests itself. If we call A^1 and B^1 the two points
on the train whose distance apart is required, then both of these points are moving
with the velocity v along the embankment. In the first place we require to
determine the points A and B of the embankment which are just being passed by
the two points A^1 and B^1 at a particular time t — judged from the embankment.
These points A and B of the embankment can be determined by applying the
definition of time given in Section 8. The distance between these points A and B is
then measured by repeated application of thee measuring-rod along the
embankment.
A priori it is by no means certain that this last measurement will supply us with the
same result as the first. Thus the length of the train as measured from the
embankment may be different from that obtained by measuring in the train itself.
This circumstance leads us to a second objection which must be raised against the
apparently obvious consideration of Section 6. Namely, if the man in the carriage
covers the distance w in a unit of time — measured from the train, — then this
distance — as measured from the embankment — is not necessarily also equal to
w.
Notes
*) e.g. the middle of the first and of the hundredth carriage.
THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION
The results of the last three sections show that the apparent incompatibility of the
law of propagation of light with the principle of relativity (Section 7) has been
derived by means of a consideration which borrowed two unjustifiable hypotheses
from classical mechanics; these are as follows:
(1) The time-interval (time) between two events is independent of the condition of
motion of the body of reference.
(2) The space-interval (distance) between two points of a rigid body is independent
of the condition of motion of the body of reference.
If we drop these hypotheses, then the dilemma of Section 7 disappears, because the
theorem of the addition of velocities derived in Section 6 becomes invalid. The
possibility presents itself that the law of the propagation of light in vacuo may be
compatible with the principle of relativity, and the question arises: How have we to
modify the considerations of Section 6 in order to remove the apparent
disagreement between these two fundamental results of experience? This question
leads to a general one. In the discussion of Section 6 we have to do with places and
times relative both to the train and to the embankment. How are we to find the
place and time of an event in relation to the train, when we know the place and time
of the event with respect to the railway embankment ? Is there a thinkable answer
to this question of such a nature that the law of transmission of light in vacuo does
not contradict the principle of relativity ? In other words : Can we conceive of a
relation between place and time of the individual events relative to both reference-
bodies, such that every ray of light possesses the velocity of transmission c relative
to the embankment and relative to the train ? This question leads to a quite definite
positive answer, and to a perfectly definite transformation law for the space-time
magnitudes of an event when changing over from one body of reference to another.
Before we deal with this, we shall introduce the following incidental consideration.
Up to the present we have only considered events taking place along the
embankment, which had mathematically to assume the function of a straight line.
In the manner indicated in Section 2 we can imagine this reference-body
supplemented laterally and in a vertical direction by means of a framework of rods,
so that an event which takes place anywhere can be localised with reference to this
framework. Fig. 2 Similarly, we can imagine the train travelling with the velocity v
to be continued across the whole of space, so that every event, no matter how far
off it may be, could also be localised with respect to the second framework.
Without committing any fundamental error, we can disregard the fact that in reality
these frameworks would continually interfere with each other, owing to the
impenetrability of solid bodies. In every such framework we imagine three surfaces
perpendicular to each other marked out, and designated as " co-ordinate planes " ("
co-ordinate system "). A co-ordinate system K then corresponds to the
embankment, and a co-ordinate system K' to the train. An event, wherever it may
have taken place, would be fixed in space with respect to K by the three
perpendiculars x, y, z on the co-ordinate planes, and with regard to time by a time
value t. Relative to K1, the same event would be fixed in respect of space and time
by corresponding values x1, y1, z1, t1, which of course are not identical with x, y,
z, t. It has already been set forth in detail how these magnitudes are to be regarded
as results of physical measurements.
Obviously our problem can be exactly formulated in the following manner. What
are the values x1, y1, z1, t1, of an event with respect to K1, when the magnitudes x,
y, z, t, of the same event with respect to K are given ? The relations must be so
chosen that the law of the transmission of light in vacuo is satisfied for one and the
same ray of light (and of course for every ray) with respect to K and K1. For the
relative orientation in space of the co-ordinate systems indicated in the diagram
([7]Fig. 2), this problem is solved by means of the equations :
eq. 1: file eq01.gif
y
1
z
1
z
This system of equations is known as the " Lorentz transformation." *
If in place of the law of transmission of light we had taken as our basis the tacit
assumptions of the older mechanics as to the absolute character of times and
lengths, then instead of the above we should have obtained the following equations:
x
1
v
t
y
1
z
1
t
1
t
This system of equations is often termed the " Galilei transformation." The Galilei
transformation can be obtained from the Lorentz transformation by substituting an
infinitely large value for the velocity of light c in the latter transformation.
Aided by the following illustration, we can readily see that, in accordance with the
Lorentz transformation, the law of the transmission of light in vacuo is satisfied
both for the reference-body K and for the reference-body K1. A light-signal is sent
along the positive x-axis, and this light-stimulus advances in accordance with the
equation
x = ct,
i.e. with the velocity c. According to the equations of the Lorentz transformation,
this simple relation between x and t involves a relation between x1 and t1. In point
of fact, if we substitute for x the value ct in the first and fourth equations of the
Lorentz transformation, we obtain:
from which, by division, the expression
x1 = ct1
immediately follows. If referred to the system K1, the propagation of light takes
place according to this equation. We thus see that the velocity of transmission
relative to the reference-body K1 is also equal to c. The same result is obtained for
rays of light advancing in any other direction whatsoever. Of cause this is not
surprising, since the equations of the Lorentz transformation were derived
conformably to this point of view.
Notes
*) A simple derivation of the Lorentz transformation is given in
Appendix I.
THE BEHAVIOUR OF MEASURING-RODS AND CLOCKS IN MOTION
Place a metre-rod in the x1-axis of K1 in such a manner that one end (the
beginning) coincides with the point x1=0 whilst the other end (the end of the rod)
coincides with the point x1=I. What is the length of the metre-rod relatively to the
system K? In order to learn this, we need only ask where the beginning of the rod
and the end of the rod lie with respect to K at a particular time t of the system K.
By means of the first equation of the Lorentz transformation the values of these two
points at the time t = 0 can be shown to be
eq. 05a: file eq05a.gif
eq. 05b: file eq05b.gif
the distance between the points being eq. 06 .
But the metre-rod is moving with the velocity v relative to K. It therefore follows
that the length of a rigid metre-rod moving in the direction of its length with a
velocity v is eq. 06 of a metre.
The rigid rod is thus shorter when in motion than when at rest, and the more
quickly it is moving, the shorter is the rod. For the velocity v=c we should have eq.
06a ,
and for stiII greater velocities the square-root becomes imaginary. From this we
conclude that in the theory of relativity the velocity c plays the part of a limiting
velocity, which can neither be reached nor exceeded by any real body.
Of course this feature of the velocity c as a limiting velocity also clearly follows
from the equations of the Lorentz transformation, for these became meaningless if
we choose values of v greater than c.
If, on the contrary, we had considered a metre-rod at rest in the x-axis with respect
to K, then we should have found that the length of the rod as judged from K1
would have been eq. 06 ;
this is quite in accordance with the principle of relativity which forms the basis of
our considerations.
A Priori it is quite clear that we must be able to learn something about the physical
behaviour of measuring-rods and clocks from the equations of transformation, for
the magnitudes z, y, x, t, are nothing more nor less than the results of measurements
obtainable by means of measuring-rods and clocks. If we had based our
considerations on the Galileian transformation we should not have obtained a
contraction of the rod as a consequence of its motion.
Let us now consider a seconds-clock which is permanently situated at the origin
(x1=0) of K1. t1=0 and t1=I are two successive ticks of this clock. The first and
fourth equations of the Lorentz transformation give for these two ticks :
t=0
and
As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this
reference-body, the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one
second, but
seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes
more slowly than when at rest. Here also the velocity c plays the part of an
unattainable limiting velocity.
THEOREM OF THE ADDITION OF VELOCITIES. THE EXPERIMENT
OF FIZEAU
Now in practice we can move clocks and measuring-rods only with velocities that
are small compared with the velocity of light; hence we shall hardly be able to
compare the results of the previous section directly with the reality. But, on the
other hand, these results must strike you as being very singular, and for that reason
I shall now draw another conclusion from the theory, one which can easily be
derived from the foregoing considerations, and which has been most elegantly
confirmed by experiment.
In Section 6 we derived the theorem of the addition of velocities in one direction in
the form which also results from the hypotheses of classical mechanics- This
theorem can also be deduced readily horn the Galilei transformation (Section 11).
In place of the man walking inside the carriage, we introduce a point moving
relatively to the co-ordinate system K1 in accordance with the equation
x1 = wt1
By means of the first and fourth equations of the Galilei transformation we can
express x1 and t1 in terms of x and t, and we then obtain
x = (v + w)t
This equation expresses nothing else than the law of motion of the point with
reference to the system K (of the man with reference to the embankment). We
denote this velocity by the symbol W, and we then obtain, as in Section 6,
W=v+w A)
But we can carry out this consideration just as well on the basis of the theory of
relativity. In the equation
x1 = wt1 B)
we must then express x1and t1 in terms of x and t, making use of the first and
fourth equations of the Lorentz transformation. Instead of the equation (A) we then
obtain the equation
which corresponds to the theorem of addition for velocities in one direction
according to the theory of relativity. The question now arises as to which of these
two theorems is the better in accord with experience. On this point we axe
enlightened by a most important experiment which the brilliant physicist Fizeau
performed more than half a century ago, and which has been repeated since then by
some of the best experimental physicists, so that there can be no doubt about its
result. The experiment is concerned with the following question. Light travels in a
motionless liquid with a particular velocity w. How quickly does it travel in the
direction of the arrow in the tube T (see the accompanying diagram, Fig. 3) when
the liquid above mentioned is flowing through the tube with a velocity v ?
In accordance with the principle of relativity we shall certainly have to take for
granted that the propagation of light always takes place with the same velocity w
with respect to the liquid, whether the latter is in motion with reference to other
bodies or not. The velocity of light relative to the liquid and the velocity of the
latter relative to the tube are thus known, and we require the velocity of light
relative to the tube.
It is clear that we have the problem of Section 6 again before us. The tube plays the
part of the railway embankment or of the co-ordinate system K, the liquid plays the
part of the carriage or of the co-ordinate system K1, and finally, the light plays the
part of the
Figure 03: file fig03.gif
man walking along the carriage, or of the moving point in the present section. If we
denote the velocity of the light relative to the tube by W, then this is given by the
equation (A) or (B), according as the Galilei transformation or the Lorentz
transformation corresponds to the facts. Experiment * decides in favour of equation
(B) derived from the theory of relativity, and the agreement is, indeed, very exact.
According to recent and most excellent measurements by Zeeman, the influence of
the velocity of flow v on the propagation of light is represented by formula (B) to
within one per cent.
Nevertheless we must now draw attention to the fact that a theory of this
phenomenon was given by H. A. Lorentz long before the statement of the theory of
relativity. This theory was of a purely electrodynamical nature, and was obtained
by the use of particular hypotheses as to the electromagnetic structure of matter.
This circumstance, however, does not in the least diminish the conclusiveness of
the experiment as a crucial test in favour of the theory of relativity, for the
electrodynamics of Maxwell-Lorentz, on which the original theory was based, in no
way opposes the theory of relativity. Rather has the latter been developed trom
electrodynamics as an astoundingly simple combination and generalisation of the
hypotheses, formerly independent of each other, on which electrodynamics was
built.
Notes
*) Fizeau found eq. 10 , where eq. 11
is the index of refraction of the liquid. On the other hand, owing to the smallness of
eq. 12 as compared with I,
we can replace (B) in the first place by eq. 13 , or to the same order of
approximation by
eq. 14 , which agrees with Fizeau's result.
THE HEURISTIC VALUE OF THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY
Our train of thought in the foregoing pages can be epitomised in the following
manner. Experience has led to the conviction that, on the one hand, the principle of
relativity holds true and that on the other hand the velocity of transmission of light
in vacuo has to be considered equal to a constant c. By uniting these two postulates
we obtained the law of transformation for the rectangular co-ordinates x, y, z and
the time t of the events which constitute the processes of nature. In this connection
we did not obtain the Galilei transformation, but, differing from classical
mechanics, the Lorentz transformation.
The law of transmission of light, the acceptance of which is justified by our actual
knowledge, played an important part in this process of thought. Once in possession
of the Lorentz transformation, however, we can combine this with the principle of
relativity, and sum up the theory thus:
Every general law of nature must be so constituted that it is transformed into a law
of exactly the same form when, instead of the space-time variables x, y, z, t of the
original coordinate system K, we introduce new space-time variables x1, y1, z1, t1
of a co-ordinate system K1. In this connection the relation between the ordinary
and the accented magnitudes is given by the Lorentz transformation. Or in brief :
General laws of nature are co-variant with respect to Lorentz transformations.
This is a definite mathematical condition that the theory of relativity demands of a
natural law, and in virtue of this, the theory becomes a valuable heuristic aid in the
search for general laws of nature. If a general law of nature were to be found which
did not satisfy this condition, then at least one of the two fundamental assumptions
of the theory would have been disproved. Let us now examine what general results
the latter theory has hitherto evinced.
GENERAL RESULTS OF THE THEORY
It is clear from our previous considerations that the (special) theory of relativity has
grown out of electrodynamics and optics. In these fields it has not appreciably
altered the predictions of theory, but it has considerably simplified the theoretical
structure, i.e. the derivation of laws, and — what is incomparably more important
— it has considerably reduced the number of independent hypothese forming the
basis of theory. The special theory of relativity has rendered the Maxwell-Lorentz
theory so plausible, that the latter would have been generally accepted by physicists
even if experiment had decided less unequivocally in its favour.
Classical mechanics required to be modified before it could come into line with the
demands of the special theory of relativity. For the main part, however, this
modification affects only the laws for rapid motions, in which the velocities of
matter v are not very small as compared with the velocity of light. We have
experience of such rapid motions only in the case of electrons and ions; for other
motions the variations from the laws of classical mechanics are too small to make
themselves evident in practice. We shall not consider the motion of stars until we
come to speak of the general theory of relativity. In accordance with the theory of
relativity the kinetic energy of a material point of mass m is no longer given by the
well-known expression
but by the expression
This expression approaches infinity as the velocity v approaches the velocity of
light c. The velocity must therefore always remain less than c, however great may
be the energies used to produce the acceleration. If we develop the expression for
the kinetic energy in the form of a series, we obtain
When eq. 18 is small compared with unity, the third of these terms is always small
in comparison with the second,
which last is alone considered in classical mechanics. The first term mc^2 does not
contain the velocity, and requires no consideration if we are only dealing with the
question as to how the energy of a point-mass; depends on the velocity. We shall
speak of its essential significance later.
The most important result of a general character to which the special theory of
relativity has led is concerned with the conception of mass. Before the advent of
relativity, physics recognised two conservation laws of fundamental importance,
namely, the law of the canservation of energy and the law of the conservation of
mass these two fundamental laws appeared to be quite independent of each other.
By means of the theory of relativity they have been united into one law. We shall
now briefly consider how this unification came about, and what meaning is to be
attached to it.
The principle of relativity requires that the law of the concervation of energy
should hold not only with reference to a co-ordinate system K, but also with respect
to every co-ordinate system K1 which is in a state of uniform motion of translation
relative to K, or, briefly, relative to every " Galileian " system of co-ordinates. In
contrast to classical mechanics; the Lorentz transformation is the deciding factor in
the transition from one such system to another.
By means of comparatively simple considerations we are led to draw the following
conclusion from these premises, in conjunction with the fundamental equations of
the electrodynamics of Maxwell: A body moving with the velocity v, which
absorbs * an amount of energy E[0] in the form of radiation without suffering an
alteration in velocity in the process, has, as a consequence, its energy increased by
an amount
In consideration of the expression given above for the kinetic energy of the body,
the required energy of the body comes out to be
Thus the body has the same energy as a body of mass
eq.21: file eq21.gif
moving with the velocity v. Hence we can say: If a body takes up an amount of
energy E[0], then its inertial mass increases by an amount
the inertial mass of a body is not a constant but varies according to the change in
the energy of the body. The inertial mass of a system of bodies can even be
regarded as a measure of its energy. The law of the conservation of the mass of a
system becomes identical with the law of the conservation of energy, and is only
valid provided that the system neither takes up nor sends out energy. Writing the
expression for the energy in the form
we see that the term mc^2, which has hitherto attracted our attention, is nothing
else than the energy possessed by the body ** before it absorbed the energy E[0].
A direct comparison of this relation with experiment is not possible at the present
time (1920; see *** Note, p. 48), owing to the fact that the changes in energy E[0]
to which we can Subject a system are not large enough to make themselves
perceptible as a change in the inertial mass of the system.
is too small in comparison with the mass m, which was present before the alteration
of the energy. It is owing to this circumstance that classical mechanics was able to
establish successfully the conservation of mass as a law of independent validity.
Let me add a final remark of a fundamental nature. The success of the Faraday-
Maxwell interpretation of electromagnetic action at a distance resulted in physicists
becoming convinced that there are no such things as instantaneous actions at a
distance (not involving an intermediary medium) of the type of Newton's law of
gravitation. According to the theory of relativity, action at a distance with the
velocity of light always takes the place of instantaneous action at a distance or of
action at a distance with an infinite velocity of transmission. This is connected with
the fact that the velocity c plays a fundamental role in this theory. In Part II we
shall see in what way this result becomes modified in the general theory of
relativity.
Notes
*) E[0] is the energy taken up, as judged from a co-ordinate system moving with
the body.
**) As judged from a co-ordinate system moving with the body.
***[Note] The equation E = mc^2 has been thoroughly proved time and again since
this time.
EXPERIENCE AND THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
To what extent is the special theory of relativity supported by experience? This
question is not easily answered for the reason already mentioned in connection with
the fundamental experiment of Fizeau. The special theory of relativity has
crystallised out from the Maxwell-Lorentz theory of electromagnetic phenomena.
Thus all facts of experience which support the electromagnetic theory also support
the theory of relativity. As being of particular importance, I mention here the fact
that the theory of relativity enables us to predict the effects produced on the light
reaching us from the fixed stars. These results are obtained in an exceedingly
simple manner, and the effects indicated, which are due to the relative motion of
the earth with reference to those fixed stars are found to be in accord with
experience. We refer to the yearly movement of the apparent position of the fixed
stars resulting from the motion of the earth round the sun (aberration), and to the
influence of the radial components of the relative motions of the fixed stars with
respect to the earth on the colour of the light reaching us from them. The latter
effect manifests itself in a slight displacement of the spectral lines of the light
transmitted to us from a fixed star, as compared with the position of the same
spectral lines when they are produced by a terrestrial source of light (Doppler
principle). The experimental arguments in favour of the Maxwell-Lorentz theory,
which are at the same time arguments in favour of the theory of relativity, are too
numerous to be set forth here. In reality they limit the theoretical possibilities to
such an extent, that no other theory than that of Maxwell and Lorentz has been able
to hold its own when tested by experience.
But there are two classes of experimental facts hitherto obtained which can be
represented in the Maxwell-Lorentz theory only by the introduction of an auxiliary
hypothesis, which in itself — i.e. without making use of the theory of relativity —
appears extraneous.
It is known that cathode rays and the so-called b-rays emitted by radioactive
substances consist of negatively electrified particles (electrons) of very small
inertia and large velocity. By examining the deflection of these rays under the
influence of electric and magnetic fields, we can study the law of motion of these
particles very exactly.
In the theoretical treatment of these electrons, we are faced with the difficulty that
electrodynamic theory of itself is unable to give an account of their nature. For
since electrical masses of one sign repel each other, the negative electrical masses
constituting the electron would necessarily be scattered under the influence of their
mutual repulsions, unless there are forces of another kind operating between them,
the nature of which has hitherto remained obscure to us.* If we now assume that
the relative distances between the electrical masses constituting the electron remain
unchanged during the motion of the electron (rigid connection in the sense of
classical mechanics), we arrive at a law of motion of the electron which does not
agree with experience. Guided by purely formal points of view, H. A. Lorentz was
the first to introduce the hypothesis that the form of the electron experiences a
contraction in the direction of motion in consequence of that motion. the contracted
length being proportional to the expression
This, hypothesis, which is not justifiable by any electrodynamical facts, supplies us
then with that particular law of motion which has been confirmed with great
precision in recent years.
The theory of relativity leads to the same law of motion, without requiring any
special hypothesis whatsoever as to the structure and the behaviour of the electron.
We arrived at a similar conclusion in Section 13 in connection with the experiment
of Fizeau, the result of which is foretold by the theory of relativity without the
necessity of drawing on hypotheses as to the physical nature of the liquid.
The second class of facts to which we have alluded has reference to the question
whether or not the motion of the earth in space can be made perceptible in
terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked in Section 5 that all attempts of
this nature led to a negative result. Before the theory of relativity was put forward,
it was difficult to become reconciled to this negative result, for reasons now to be
discussed. The inherited prejudices about time and space did not allow any doubt to
arise as to the prime importance of the Galileian transformation for changing over
from one body of reference to another. Now assuming that the Maxwell-Lorentz
equations hold for a reference-body K, we then find that they do not hold for a
reference-body K1 moving uniformly with respect to K, if we assume that the
relations of the Galileian transformstion exist between the co-ordinates of K and
K1. It thus appears that, of all Galileian co-ordinate systems, one (K) corresponding
to a particular state of motion is physically unique. This result was interpreted
physically by regarding K as at rest with respect to a hypothetical æther of space.
On the other hand, all coordinate systems K1 moving relatively to K were to be
regarded as in motion with respect to the æther. To this motion of K1 against the
æther ("æther-drift " relative to K1) were attributed the more complicated laws
which were supposed to hold relative to K1. Strictly speaking, such an æther-drift
ought also to be assumed relative to the earth, and for a long time the efforts of
physicists were devoted to attempts to detect the existence of an æther-drift at the
earth's surface.
In one of the most notable of these attempts Michelson devised a method which
appears as though it must be decisive. Imagine two mirrors so arranged on a rigid
body that the reflecting surfaces face each other. A ray of light requires a perfectly
definite time T to pass from one mirror to the other and back again, if the whole
system be at rest with respect to the æther. It is found by calculation, however, that
a slightly different time T1 is required for this process, if the body, together with
the mirrors, be moving relatively to the æther. And yet another point: it is shown by
calculation that for a given velocity v with reference to the æther, this time T1 is
different when the body is moving perpendicularly to the planes of the mirrors from
that resulting when the motion is parallel to these planes. Although the estimated
difference between these two times is exceedingly small, Michelson and Morley
performed an experiment involving interference in which this difference should
have been clearly detectable. But the experiment gave a negative result — a fact
very perplexing to physicists. Lorentz and FitzGerald rescued the theory from this
difficulty by assuming that the motion of the body relative to the æther produces a
contraction of the body in the direction of motion, the amount of contraction being
just sufficient to compensate for the differeace in time mentioned above.
Comparison with the discussion in Section 11 shows that also from the standpoint
of the theory of relativity this solution of the difficulty was the right one. But on the
basis of the theory of relativity the method of interpretation is incomparably more
satisfactory. According to this theory there is no such thing as a " specially
favoured " (unique) co-ordinate system to occasion the introduction of the æther-
idea, and hence there can be no æther-drift, nor any experiment with which to
demonstrate it. Here the contraction of moving bodies follows from the two
fundamental principles of the theory, without the introduction of particular
hypotheses ; and as the prime factor involved in this contraction we find, not the
motion in itself, to which we cannot attach any meaning, but the motion with
respect to the body of reference chosen in the particular case in point. Thus for a
co-ordinate system moving with the earth the mirror system of Michelson and
Morley is not shortened, but it is shortened for a co-ordinate system which is at rest
relatively to the sun.
Notes
*) The general theory of relativity renders it likely that the electrical masses of an
electron are held together by gravitational forces.
MINKOWSKI'S FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE
The non-mathematician is seized by a mysterious shuddering when he hears of
"four-dimensional" things, by a feeling not unlike that awakened by thoughts of the
occult. And yet there is no more common-place statement than that the world in
which we live is a four-dimensional space-time continuum.
Space is a three-dimensional continuum. By this we mean that it is possible to
describe the position of a point (at rest) by means of three numbers (co-ordinales)
x, y, z, and that there is an indefinite number of points in the neighbourhood of this
one, the position of which can be described by co-ordinates such as x[1], y[1], z[1],
which may be as near as we choose to the respective values of the co-ordinates x, y,
z, of the first point. In virtue of the latter property we speak of a " continuum," and
owing to the fact that there are three co-ordinates we speak of it as being " three-
dimensional."
Similarly, the world of physical phenomena which was briefly called " world " by
Minkowski is naturally four dimensional in the space-time sense. For it is
composed of individual events, each of which is described by four numbers,
namely, three space co-ordinates x, y, z, and a time co-ordinate, the time value t.
The" world" is in this sense also a continuum; for to every event there are as many
"neighbouring" events (realised or at least thinkable) as we care to choose, the co-
ordinates x[1], y[1], z[1], t[1] of which differ by an indefinitely small amount from
those of the event x, y, z, t originally considered. That we have not been
accustomed to regard the world in this sense as a four-dimensional continuum is
due to the fact that in physics, before the advent of the theory of relativity, time
played a different and more independent role, as compared with the space
coordinates. It is for this reason that we have been in the habit of treating time as an
independent continuum. As a matter of fact, according to classical mechanics, time
is absolute, i.e. it is independent of the position and the condition of motion of the
system of co-ordinates. We see this expressed in the last equation of the Galileian
transformation (t1 = t)
The four-dimensional mode of consideration of the "world" is natural on the theory
of relativity, since according to this theory time is robbed of its independence. This
is shown by the fourth equation of the Lorentz transformation:
Moreover, according to this equation the time difference Dt1 of two events with
respect to K1 does not in general vanish, even when the time difference Dt1 of the
same events with reference to K vanishes. Pure " space-distance " of two events
with respect to K results in " time-distance " of the same events with respect to K.
But the discovery of Minkowski, which was of importance for the formal
development of the theory of relativity, does not lie here. It is to be found rather in
the fact of his recognition that the four-dimensional space-time continuum of the
theory of relativity, in its most essential formal properties, shows a pronounced
relationship to the three-dimensional continuum of Euclidean geometrical space.*
In order to give due prominence to this relationship, however, we must replace the
usual time co-ordinate t by an imaginary magnitude eq. 25 proportional to it. Under
these conditions, the natural laws satisfying the demands of the (special) theory of
relativity assume mathematical forms, in which the time co-ordinate plays exactly
the same role as the three space co-ordinates. Formally, these four co-ordinates
correspond exactly to the three space co-ordinates in Euclidean geometry. It must
be clear even to the non-mathematician that, as a consequence of this purely formal
addition to our knowledge, the theory perforce gained clearness in no mean
measure.
These inadequate remarks can give the reader only a vague notion of the important
idea contributed by Minkowski. Without it the general theory of relativity, of which
the fundamental ideas are developed in the following pages, would perhaps have
got no farther than its long clothes. Minkowski's work is doubtless difficult of
access to anyone inexperienced in mathematics, but since it is not necessary to have
a very exact grasp of this work in order to understand the fundamental ideas of
either the special or the general theory of relativity, I shall leave it here at present,
and revert to it only towards the end of Part 2.
Notes
*) Cf. the somewhat more detailed discussion in Appendix II.
PART II
THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
SPECIAL AND GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY
The basal principle, which was the pivot of all our previous considerations, was the
special principle of relativity, i.e. the principle of the physical relativity of all
uniform motion. Let as once more analyse its meaning carefully.
It was at all times clear that, from the point of view of the idea it conveys to us,
every motion must be considered only as a relative motion. Returning to the
illustration we have frequently used of the embankment and the railway carriage,
we can express the fact of the motion here taking place in the following two forms,
both of which are equally justifiable :
(a) The carriage is in motion relative to the embankment, (b) The embankment is in
motion relative to the carriage.
In (a) the embankment, in (b) the carriage, serves as the body of reference in our
statement of the motion taking place. If it is simply a question of detecting or of
describing the motion involved, it is in principle immaterial to what reference-body
we refer the motion. As already mentioned, this is self-evident, but it must not be
confused with the much more comprehensive statement called "the principle of
relativity," which we have taken as the basis of our investigations.
The principle we have made use of not only maintains that we may equally well
choose the carriage or the embankment as our reference-body for the description of
any event (for this, too, is self-evident). Our principle rather asserts what follows :
If we formulate the general laws of nature as they are obtained from experience, by
making use of
(a) the embankment as reference-body, (b) the railway carriage as reference-body,
then these general laws of nature (e.g. the laws of mechanics or the law of the
propagation of light in vacuo) have exactly the same form in both cases. This can
also be expressed as follows : For the physical description of natural processes,
neither of the reference bodies K, K1 is unique (lit. " specially marked out ") as
compared with the other. Unlike the first, this latter statement need not of necessity
hold a priori; it is not contained in the conceptions of " motion" and " reference-
body " and derivable from them; only experience can decide as to its correctness or
incorrectness.
Up to the present, however, we have by no means maintained the equivalence of all
bodies of reference K in connection with the formulation of natural laws. Our
course was more on the following Iines. In the first place, we started out from the
assumption that there exists a reference-body K, whose condition of motion is such
that the Galileian law holds with respect to it : A particle left to itself and
sufficiently far removed from all other particles moves uniformly in a straight line.
With reference to K (Galileian reference-body) the laws of nature were to be as
simple as possible. But in addition to K, all bodies of reference K1 should be given
preference in this sense, and they should be exactly equivalent to K for the
formulation of natural laws, provided that they are in a state of uniform rectilinear
and non-rotary motion with respect to K ; all these bodies of reference are to be
regarded as Galileian reference-bodies. The validity of the principle of relativity
was assumed only for these reference-bodies, but not for others (e.g. those
possessing motion of a different kind). In this sense we speak of the special
principle of relativity, or special theory of relativity.
In contrast to this we wish to understand by the "general principle of relativity" the
following statement : All bodies of reference K, K1, etc., are equivalent for the
description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature),
whatever may be their state of motion. But before proceeding farther, it ought to be
pointed out that this formulation must be replaced later by a more abstract one, for
reasons which will become evident at a later stage.
Since the introduction of the special principle of relativity has been justified, every
intellect which strives after generalisation must feel the temptation to venture the
step towards the general principle of relativity. But a simple and apparently quite
reliable consideration seems to suggest that, for the present at any rate, there is little
hope of success in such an attempt; Let us imagine ourselves transferred to our old
friend the railway carriage, which is travelling at a uniform rate. As long as it is
moving unifromly, the occupant of the carriage is not sensible of its motion, and it
is for this reason that he can without reluctance interpret the facts of the case as
indicating that the carriage is at rest, but the embankment in motion. Moreover,
according to the special principle of relativity, this interpretation is quite justified
also from a physical point of view.
If the motion of the carriage is now changed into a non-uniform motion, as for
instance by a powerful application of the brakes, then the occupant of the carriage
experiences a correspondingly powerful jerk forwards. The retarded motion is
manifested in the mechanical behaviour of bodies relative to the person in the
railway carriage. The mechanical behaviour is different from that of the case
previously considered, and for this reason it would appear to be impossible that the
same mechanical laws hold relatively to the non-uniformly moving carriage, as
hold with reference to the carriage when at rest or in uniform motion. At all events
it is clear that the Galileian law does not hold with respect to the non-uniformly
moving carriage. Because of this, we feel compelled at the present juncture to grant
a kind of absolute physical reality to non-uniform motion, in opposition to the
general principle of relatvity. But in what follows we shall soon see that this
conclusion cannot be maintained.
THE GRAVITATIONAL FIELD
"If we pick up a stone and then let it go, why does it fall to the ground ?" The usual
answer to this question is: "Because it is attracted by the earth." Modern physics
formulates the answer rather differently for the following reason. As a result of the
more careful study of electromagnetic phenomena, we have come to regard action
at a distance as a process impossible without the intervention of some intermediary
medium. If, for instance, a magnet attracts a piece of iron, we cannot be content to
regard this as meaning that the magnet acts directly on the iron through the
intermediate empty space, but we are constrained to imagine — after the manner of
Faraday — that the magnet always calls into being something physically real in the
space around it, that something being what we call a "magnetic field." In its turn
this magnetic field operates on the piece of iron, so that the latter strives to move
towards the magnet. We shall not discuss here the justification for this incidental
conception, which is indeed a somewhat arbitrary one. We shall only mention that
with its aid electromagnetic phenomena can be theoretically represented much
more satisfactorily than without it, and this applies particularly to the transmission
of electromagnetic waves. The effects of gravitation also are regarded in an
analogous manner.
The action of the earth on the stone takes place indirectly. The earth produces in its
surrounding a gravitational field, which acts on the stone and produces its motion
of fall. As we know from experience, the intensity of the action on a body dimishes
according to a quite definite law, as we proceed farther and farther away from the
earth. From our point of view this means : The law governing the properties of the
gravitational field in space must be a perfectly definite one, in order correctly to
represent the diminution of gravitational action with the distance from operative
bodies. It is something like this: The body (e.g. the earth) produces a field in its
immediate neighbourhood directly; the intensity and direction of the field at points
farther removed from the body are thence determined by the law which governs the
properties in space of the gravitational fields themselves.
In contrast to electric and magnetic fields, the gravitational field exhibits a most
remarkable property, which is of fundamental importance for what follows. Bodies
which are moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field receive an
acceleration, which does not in the least depend either on the material or on the
physical state of the body. For instance, a piece of lead and a piece of wood fall in
exactly the same manner in a gravitational field (in vacuo), when they start off from
rest or with the same initial velocity. This law, which holds most accurately, can be
expressed in a different form in the light of the following consideration.
According to Newton's law of motion, we have
(Force) = (inertial mass) x (acceleration),
where the "inertial mass" is a characteristic constant of the accelerated body. If now
gravitation is the cause of the acceleration, we then have
(Force) = (gravitational mass) x (intensity of the gravitational field),
where the "gravitational mass" is likewise a characteristic constant for the body.
From these two relations follows:
If now, as we find from experience, the acceleration is to be independent of the
nature and the condition of the body and always the same for a given gravitational
field, then the ratio of the gravitational to the inertial mass must likewise be the
same for all bodies. By a suitable choice of units we can thus make this ratio equal
to unity. We then have the following law: The gravitational mass of a body is equal
to its inertial law.
It is true that this important law had hitherto been recorded in mechanics, but it had
not been interpreted. A satisfactory interpretation can be obtained only if we
recognise the following fact : The same quality of a body manifests itself according
to circumstances as " inertia " or as " weight " (lit. " heaviness '). In the following
section we shall show to what extent this is actually the case, and how this question
is connected with the general postulate of relativity.
THE EQUALITY OF INERTIAL AND
GRAVITATIONAL MASS AS AN ARGUMENT FOR
THE GENERAL POSTULE OF RELATIVITY
We imagine a large portion of empty space, so far removed from stars and other
appreciable masses, that we have before us approximately the conditions required
by the fundamental law of Galilei. It is then possible to choose a Galileian
reference-body for this part of space (world), relative to which points at rest remain
at rest and points in motion continue permanently in uniform rectilinear motion. As
reference-body let us imagine a spacious chest resembling a room with an observer
inside who is equipped with apparatus. Gravitation naturally does not exist for this
observer. He must fasten himself with strings to the floor, otherwise the slightest
impact against the floor will cause him to rise slowly towards the ceiling of the
room.
To the middle of the lid of the chest is fixed externally a hook with rope attached,
and now a " being " (what kind of a being is immaterial to us) begins pulling at this
with a constant force. The chest together with the observer then begin to move
"upwards" with a uniformly accelerated motion. In course of time their velocity
will reach unheard-of values — provided that we are viewing all this from another
reference-body which is not being pulled with a rope.
But how does the man in the chest regard the Process ? The acceleration of the
chest will be transmitted to him by the reaction of the floor of the chest. He must
therefore take up this pressure by means of his legs if he does not wish to be laid
out full length on the floor. He is then standing in the chest in exactly the same way
as anyone stands in a room of a home on our earth. If he releases a body which he
previously had in his land, the accelertion of the chest will no longer be transmitted
to this body, and for this reason the body will approach the floor of the chest with
an accelerated relative motion. The observer will further convince himself that the
acceleration of the body towards the floor of the chest is always of the same
magnitude, whatever kind of body he may happen to use for the experiment.
Relying on his knowledge of the gravitational field (as it was discussed in the
preceding section), the man in the chest will thus come to the conclusion that he
and the chest are in a gravitational field which is constant with regard to time. Of
course he will be puzzled for a moment as to why the chest does not fall in this
gravitational field. just then, however, he discovers the hook in the middle of the lid
of the chest and the rope which is attached to it, and he consequently comes to the
conclusion that the chest is suspended at rest in the gravitational field.
Ought we to smile at the man and say that he errs in his conclusion ? I do not
believe we ought to if we wish to remain consistent ; we must rather admit that his
mode of grasping the situation violates neither reason nor known mechanical laws.
Even though it is being accelerated with respect to the "Galileian space" first
considered, we can nevertheless regard the chest as being at rest. We have thus
good grounds for extending the principle of relativity to include bodies of reference
which are accelerated with respect to each other, and as a result we have gained a
powerful argument for a generalised postulate of relativity.
We must note carefully that the possibility of this mode of interpretation rests on
the fundamental property of the gravitational field of giving all bodies the same
acceleration, or, what comes to the same thing, on the law of the equality of inertial
and gravitational mass. If this natural law did not exist, the man in the accelerated
chest would not be able to interpret the behaviour of the bodies around him on the
supposition of a gravitational field, and he would not be justified on the grounds of
experience in supposing his reference-body to be " at rest."
Suppose that the man in the chest fixes a rope to the inner side of the lid, and that
he attaches a body to the free end of the rope. The result of this will be to strech the
rope so that it will hang " vertically " downwards. If we ask for an opinion of the
cause of tension in the rope, the man in the chest will say: "The suspended body
experiences a downward force in the gravitational field, and this is neutralised by
the tension of the rope ; what determines the magnitude of the tension of the rope is
the gravitational mass of the suspended body." On the other hand, an observer who
is poised freely in space will interpret the condition of things thus : " The rope must
perforce take part in the accelerated motion of the chest, and it transmits this
motion to the body attached to it. The tension of the rope is just large enough to
effect the acceleration of the body. That which determines the magnitude of the
tension of the rope is the inertial mass of the body." Guided by this example, we
see that our extension of the principle of relativity implies the necessity of the law
of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. Thus we have obtained a physical
interpretation of this law.
From our consideration of the accelerated chest we see that a general theory of
relativity must yield important results on the laws of gravitation. In point of fact,
the systematic pursuit of the general idea of relativity has supplied the laws
satisfied by the gravitational field. Before proceeding farther, however, I must warn
the reader against a misconception suggested by these considerations. A
gravitational field exists for the man in the chest, despite the fact that there was no
such field for the co-ordinate system first chosen. Now we might easily suppose
that the existence of a gravitational field is always only an apparent one. We might
also think that, regardless of the kind of gravitational field which may be present,
we could always choose another reference-body such that no gravitational field
exists with reference to it. This is by no means true for all gravitational fields, but
only for those of quite special form. It is, for instance, impossible to choose a body
of reference such that, as judged from it, the gravitational field of the earth (in its
entirety) vanishes.
We can now appreciate why that argument is not convincing, which we brought
forward against the general principle of relativity at theend of Section 18. It is
certainly true that the observer in the railway carriage experiences a jerk forwards
as a result of the application of the brake, and that he recognises, in this the non-
uniformity of motion (retardation) of the carriage. But he is compelled by nobody
to refer this jerk to a " real " acceleration (retardation) of the carriage. He might
also interpret his experience thus: " My body of reference (the carriage) remains
permanently at rest. With reference to it, however, there exists (during the period of
application of the brakes) a gravitational field which is directed forwards and which
is variable with respect to time. Under the influence of this field, the embankment
together with the earth moves non-uniformly in such a manner that their original
velocity in the backwards direction is continuously reduced."
IN WHAT RESPECTS ARE THE FOUNDATIONS OF CLASSICAL
MECHANICS AND OF THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
UNSATISFACTORY?
We have already stated several times that classical mechanics starts out from the
following law: Material particles sufficiently far removed from other material
particles continue to move uniformly in a straight line or continue in a state of rest.
We have also repeatedly emphasised that this fundamental law can only be valid
for bodies of reference K which possess certain unique states of motion, and which
are in uniform translational motion relative to each other. Relative to other
reference-bodies K the law is not valid. Both in classical mechanics and in the
special theory of relativity we therefore differentiate between reference-bodies K
relative to which the recognised " laws of nature " can be said to hold, and
reference-bodies K relative to which these laws do not hold.
But no person whose mode of thought is logical can rest satisfied with this
condition of things. He asks : " How does it come that certain reference-bodies (or
their states of motion) are given priority over other reference-bodies (or their states
of motion) ? What is the reason for this Preference? In order to show clearly what I
mean by this question, I shall make use of a comparison.
I am standing in front of a gas range. Standing alongside of each other on the range
are two pans so much alike that one may be mistaken for the other. Both are half
full of water. I notice that steam is being emitted continuously from the one pan,
but not from the other. I am surprised at this, even if I have never seen either a gas
range or a pan before. But if I now notice a luminous something of bluish colour
under the first pan but not under the other, I cease to be astonished, even if I have
never before seen a gas flame. For I can only say that this bluish something will
cause the emission of the steam, or at least possibly it may do so. If, however, I
notice the bluish something in neither case, and if I observe that the one
continuously emits steam whilst the other does not, then I shall remain astonished
and dissatisfied until I have discovered some circumstance to which I can attribute
the different behaviour of the two pans.
Analogously, I seek in vain for a real something in classical mechanics (or in the
special theory of relativity) to which I can attribute the different behaviour of
bodies considered with respect to the reference systems K and K1.* Newton saw
this objection and attempted to invalidate it, but without success. But E. Mach
recognsed it most clearly of all, and because of this objection he claimed that
mechanics must be placed on a new basis. It can only be got rid of by means of a
physics which is conformable to the general principle of relativity, since the
equations of such a theory hold for every body of reference, whatever may be its
state of motion.
Notes
*) The objection is of importance more especially when the state of motion of the
reference-body is of such a nature that it does not require any external agency for
its maintenance, e.g. in the case when the reference-body is rotating uniformly.
A FEW INFERENCES FROM THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF
RELATIVITY
The considerations of Section 20 show that the general principle of relativity puts
us in a position to derive properties of the gravitational field in a purely theoretical
manner. Let us suppose, for instance, that we know the space-time " course " for
any natural process whatsoever, as regards the manner in which it takes place in the
Galileian domain relative to a Galileian body of reference K. By means of purely
theoretical operations (i.e. simply by calculation) we are then able to find how this
known natural process appears, as seen from a reference-body K1 which is
accelerated relatively to K. But since a gravitational field exists with respect to this
new body of reference K1, our consideration also teaches us how the gravitational
field influences the process studied.
For example, we learn that a body which is in a state of uniform rectilinear motion
with respect to K (in accordance with the law of Galilei) is executing an accelerated
and in general curvilinear motion with respect to the accelerated reference-body K1
(chest). This acceleration or curvature corresponds to the influence on the moving
body of the gravitational field prevailing relatively to K. It is known that a
gravitational field influences the movement of bodies in this way, so that our
consideration supplies us with nothing essentially new.
However, we obtain a new result of fundamental importance when we carry out the
analogous consideration for a ray of light. With respect to the Galileian reference-
body K, such a ray of light is transmitted rectilinearly with the velocity c. It can
easily be shown that the path of the same ray of light is no longer a straight line
when we consider it with reference to the accelerated chest (reference-body K1).
From this we conclude, that, in general, rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in
gravitational fields. In two respects this result is of great importance.
In the first place, it can be compared with the reality. Although a detailed
examination of the question shows that the curvature of light rays required by the
general theory of relativity is only exceedingly small for the gravitational fields at
our disposal in practice, its estimated magnitude for light rays passing the sun at
grazing incidence is nevertheless 1.7 seconds of arc. This ought to manifest itself in
the following way. As seen from the earth, certain fixed stars appear to be in the
neighbourhood of the sun, and are thus capable of observation during a total eclipse
of the sun. At such times, these stars ought to appear to be displaced outwards from
the sun by an amount indicated above, as compared with their apparent position in
the sky when the sun is situated at another part of the heavens. The examination of
the correctness or otherwise of this deduction is a problem of the greatest
importance, the early solution of which is to be expected of astronomers.[2]*
In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which
constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of
relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any
unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a
consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of
relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only
conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlinlited domain of
validity ; its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of
gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light).
Since it has often been contended by opponents of the theory of relativity that the
special theory of relativity is overthrown by the general theory of relativity, it is
perhaps advisable to make the facts of the case clearer by means of an appropriate
comparison. Before the development of electrodynamics the laws of electrostatics
were looked upon as the laws of electricity. At the present time we know that
electric fields can be derived correctly from electrostatic considerations only for the
case, which is never strictly realised, in which the electrical masses are quite at rest
relatively to each other, and to the co-ordinate system. Should we be justified in
saying that for this reason electrostatics is overthrown by the field-equations of
Maxwell in electrodynamics ? Not in the least. Electrostatics is contained in
electrodynamics as a limiting case ; the laws of the latter lead directly to those of
the former for the case in which the fields are invariable with regard to time. No
fairer destiny could be allotted to any physical theory, than that it should of itself
point out the way to the introduction of a more comprehensive theory, in which it
lives on as a limiting case.
In the example of the transmission of light just dealt with, we have seen that the
general theory of relativity enables us to derive theoretically the influence of a
gravitational field on the course of natural processes, the Iaws of which are already
known when a gravitational field is absent. But the most attractive problem, to the
solution of which the general theory of relativity supplies the key, concerns the
investigation of the laws satisfied by the gravitational field itself. Let us consider
this for a moment.
We are acquainted with space-time domains which behave (approximately) in a "
Galileian " fashion under suitable choice of reference-body, i.e. domains in which
gravitational fields are absent. If we now refer such a domain to a reference-body
K1 possessing any kind of motion, then relative to K1 there exists a gravitational
field which is variable with respect to space and time.[3]** The character of this
field will of course depend on the motion chosen for K1. According to the general
theory of relativity, the general law of the gravitational field must be satisfied for
all gravitational fields obtainable in this way. Even though by no means all
gravitationial fields can be produced in this way, yet we may entertain the hope that
the general law of gravitation will be derivable from such gravitational fields of a
special kind. This hope has been realised in the most beautiful manner. But
between the clear vision of this goal and its actual realisation it was necessary to
surmount a serious difficulty, and as this lies deep at the root of things, I dare not
withhold it from the reader. We require to extend our ideas of the space-time
continuum still farther.
Notes
*) By means of the star photographs of two expeditions equipped by a Joint
Committee of the Royal and Royal Astronomical Societies, the existence of the
deflection of light demanded by theory was first confirmed during the solar eclipse
of 29th May, 1919. (Cf. Appendix III.)
**) This follows from a generalisation of the discussion in
Section 20
BEHAVIOUR OF CLOCKS AND MEASURING-RODS ON A ROTATING
BODY OF REFERENCE
Hitherto I have purposely refrained from speaking about the physical interpretation
of space- and time-data in the case of the general theory of relativity. As a
consequence, I am guilty of a certain slovenliness of treatment, which, as we know
from the special theory of relativity, is far from being unimportant and pardonable.
It is now high time that we remedy this defect; but I would mention at the outset,
that this matter lays no small claims on the patience and on the power of abstraction
of the reader.
We start off again from quite special cases, which we have frequently used before.
Let us consider a space time domain in which no gravitational field exists relative
to a reference-body K whose state of motion has been suitably chosen. K is then a
Galileian reference-body as regards the domain considered, and the results of the
special theory of relativity hold relative to K. Let us supposse the same domain
referred to a second body of reference K1, which is rotating uniformly with respect
to K. In order to fix our ideas, we shall imagine K1 to be in the form of a plane
circular disc, which rotates uniformly in its own plane about its centre. An observer
who is sitting eccentrically on the disc K1 is sensible of a force which acts
outwards in a radial direction, and which would be interpreted as an effect of inertia
(centrifugal force) by an observer who was at rest with respect to the original
reference-body K. But the observer on the disc may regard his disc as a reference-
body which is " at rest " ; on the basis of the general principle of relativity he is
justified in doing this. The force acting on himself, and in fact on all other bodies
which are at rest relative to the disc, he regards as the effect of a gravitational field.
Nevertheless, the space-distribution of this gravitational field is of a kind that
would not be possible on Newton's theory of gravitation.* But since the observer
believes in the general theory of relativity, this does not disturb him; he is quite in
the right when he believes that a general law of gravitation can be formulated- a
law which not only explains the motion of the stars correctly, but also the field of
force experienced by himself.
The observer performs experiments on his circular disc with clocks and measuring-
rods. In doing so, it is his intention to arrive at exact definitions for the signification
of time- and space-data with reference to the circular disc K1, these definitions
being based on his observations. What will be his experience in this enterprise ?
To start with, he places one of two identically constructed clocks at the centre of
the circular disc, and the other on the edge of the disc, so that they are at rest
relative to it. We now ask ourselves whether both clocks go at the same rate from
the standpoint of the non-rotating Galileian reference-body K. As judged from this
body, the clock at the centre of the disc has no velocity, whereas the clock at the
edge of the disc is in motion relative to K in consequence of the rotation.
According to a result obtained in Section 12, it follows that the latter clock goes at
a rate permanently slower than that of the clock at the centre of the circular disc,
i.e. as observed from K. It is obvious that the same effect would be noted by an
observer whom we will imagine sitting alongside his clock at the centre of the
circular disc. Thus on our circular disc, or, to make the case more general, in every
gravitational field, a clock will go more quickly or less quickly, according to the
position in which the clock is situated (at rest). For this reason it is not possible to
obtain a reasonable definition of time with the aid of clocks which are arranged at
rest with respect to the body of reference. A similar difficulty presents itself when
we attempt to apply our earlier definition of simultaneity in such a case, but I do
not wish to go any farther into this question.
Moreover, at this stage the definition of the space co-ordinates also presents
insurmountable difficulties. If the observer applies his standard measuring-rod (a
rod which is short as compared with the radius of the disc) tangentially to the edge
of the disc, then, as judged from the Galileian system, the length of this rod will be
less than I, since, according to Section 12, moving bodies suffer a shortening in the
direction of the motion. On the other hand, the measaring-rod will not experience a
shortening in length, as judged from K, if it is applied to the disc in the direction of
the radius. If, then, the observer first measures the circumference of the disc with
his measuring-rod and then the diameter of the disc, on dividing the one by the
other, he will not obtain as quotient the familiar number p = 3.14 . . ., but a larger
number,[4]** whereas of course, for a disc which is at rest with respect to K, this
operation would yield p exactly. This proves that the propositions of Euclidean
geometry cannot hold exactly on the rotating disc, nor in general in a gravitational
field, at least if we attribute the length I to the rod in all positions and in every
orientation. Hence the idea of a straight line also loses its meaning. We are
therefore not in a position to define exactly the co-ordinates x, y, z relative to the
disc by means of the method used in discussing the special theory, and as long as
the co- ordinates and times of events have not been defined, we cannot assign an
exact meaning to the natural laws in which these occur.
Thus all our previous conclusions based on general relativity would appear to be
called in question. In reality we must make a subtle detour in order to be able to
apply the postulate of general relativity exactly. I shall prepare the reader for this in
the following paragraphs.
Notes
*) The field disappears at the centre of the disc and increases proportionally to the
distance from the centre as we proceed outwards.
**) Throughout this consideration we have to use the Galileian (non-rotating)
system K as reference-body, since we may only assume the validity of the results of
the special theory of relativity relative to K (relative to K1 a gravitational field
prevails).
EUCLIDEAN AND NON-EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM
The surface of a marble table is spread out in front of me. I can get from any one
point on this table to any other point by passing continuously from one point to a "
neighbouring " one, and repeating this process a (large) number of times, or, in
other words, by going from point to point without executing "jumps." I am sure the
reader will appreciate with sufficient clearness what I mean here by " neighbouring
" and by " jumps " (if he is not too pedantic). We express this property of the
surface by describing the latter as a continuum.
Let us now imagine that a large number of little rods of equal length have been
made, their lengths being small compared with the dimensions of the marble slab.
When I say they are of equal length, I mean that one can be laid on any other
without the ends overlapping. We next lay four of these little rods on the marble
slab so that they constitute a quadrilateral figure (a square), the diagonals of which
are equally long. To ensure the equality of the diagonals, we make use of a little
testing-rod. To this square we add similar ones, each of which has one rod in
common with the first. We proceed in like manner with each of these squares until
finally the whole marble slab is laid out with squares. The arrangement is such, that
each side of a square belongs to two squares and each corner to four squares.
It is a veritable wonder that we can carry out this business without getting into the
greatest difficulties. We only need to think of the following. If at any moment three
squares meet at a corner, then two sides of the fourth square are already laid, and,
as a consequence, the arrangement of the remaining two sides of the square is
already completely determined. But I am now no longer able to adjust the
quadrilateral so that its diagonals may be equal. If they are equal of their own
accord, then this is an especial favour of the marble slab and of the little rods, about
which I can only be thankfully surprised. We must experience many such surprises
if the construction is to be successful.
If everything has really gone smoothly, then I say that the points of the marble slab
constitute a Euclidean continuum with respect to the little rod, which has been used
as a " distance " (line-interval). By choosing one corner of a square as " origin" I
can characterise every other corner of a square with reference to this origin by
means of two numbers. I only need state how many rods I must pass over when,
starting from the origin, I proceed towards the " right " and then " upwards," in
order to arrive at the corner of the square under consideration. These two numbers
are then the " Cartesian co-ordinates " of this corner with reference to the "
Cartesian co-ordinate system" which is determined by the arrangement of little
rods.
By making use of the following modification of this abstract experiment, we
recognise that there must also be cases in which the experiment would be
unsuccessful. We shall suppose that the rods " expand " by in amount proportional
to the increase of temperature. We heat the central part of the marble slab, but not
the periphery, in which case two of our little rods can still be brought into
coincidence at every position on the table. But our construction of squares must
necessarily come into disorder during the heating, because the little rods on the
central region of the table expand, whereas those on the outer part do not.
With reference to our little rods — defined as unit lengths — the marble slab is no
longer a Euclidean continuum, and we are also no longer in the position of defining
Cartesian co-ordinates directly with their aid, since the above construction can no
longer be carried out. But since there are other things which are not influenced in a
similar manner to the little rods (or perhaps not at all) by the temperature of the
table, it is possible quite naturally to maintain the point of view that the marble slab
is a " Euclidean continuum." This can be done in a satisfactory manner by making a
more subtle stipulation about the measurement or the comparison of lengths.
But if rods of every kind (i.e. of every material) were to behave in the same way as
regards the influence of temperature when they are on the variably heated marble
slab, and if we had no other means of detecting the effect of temperature than the
geometrical behaviour of our rods in experiments analogous to the one described
above, then our best plan would be to assign the distance one to two points on the
slab, provided that the ends of one of our rods could be made to coincide with these
two points ; for how else should we define the distance without our proceeding
being in the highest measure grossly arbitrary ? The method of Cartesian
coordinates must then be discarded, and replaced by another which does not
assume the validity of Euclidean geometry for rigid bodies.* The reader will notice
that the situation depicted here corresponds to the one brought about by the general
postitlate of relativity (Section 23).
Notes
*) Mathematicians have been confronted with our problem in the following form. If
we are given a surface (e.g. an ellipsoid) in Euclidean three-dimensional space,
then there exists for this surface a two-dimensional geometry, just as much as for a
plane surface. Gauss undertook the task of treating this two-dimensional geometry
from first principles, without making use of the fact that the surface belongs to a
Euclidean continuum of three dimensions. If we imagine constructions to be made
with rigid rods in the surface (similar to that above with the marble slab), we
should find that different laws hold for these from those resulting on the basis of
Euclidean plane geometry. The surface is not a Euclidean continuum with respect
to the rods, and we cannot define Cartesian co-ordinates in the surface. Gauss
indicated the principles according to which we can treat the geometrical
relationships in the surface, and thus pointed out the way to the method of
Riemman of treating multi-dimensional, non-Euclidean continuum. Thus it is that
mathematicians long ago solved the formal problems to which we are led by the
general postulate of relativity.
GAUSSIAN CO-ORDINATES
According to Gauss, this combined analytical and geometrical mode of handling
the problem can be arrived at in the following way. We imagine a system of
arbitrary curves (see Fig. 4) drawn on the surface of the table. These we designate
as u-curves, and we indicate each of them by means of a number. The Curves u= 1,
u= 2 and u= 3 are drawn in the diagram. Between the curves u= 1 and u= 2 we
must imagine an infinitely large number to be drawn, all of which correspond to
real numbers lying between 1 and 2. fig. 04 We have then a system of u-curves, and
this "infinitely dense" system covers the whole surface of the table. These u-curves
must not intersect each other, and through each point of the surface one and only
one curve must pass. Thus a perfectly definite value of u belongs to every point on
the surface of the marble slab. In like manner we imagine a system of v-curves
drawn on the surface. These satisfy the same conditions as the u-curves, they are
provided with numbers in a corresponding manner, and they may likewise be of
arbitrary shape. It follows that a value of u and a value of v belong to every point
on the surface of the table. We call these two numbers the co-ordinates of the
surface of the table (Gaussian co-ordinates). For example, the point P in the
diagram has the Gaussian co-ordinates u= 3, v= 1. Two neighbouring points P and
P1 on the surface then correspond to the co-ordinates
P: u,v
P1: u + du, v + dv,
where du and dv signify very small numbers. In a similar manner we may indicate
the distance (line-interval) between P and P1, as measured with a little rod, by
means of the very small number ds. Then according to Gauss we have
ds2 = g[11]du2 + 2g[12]dudv = g[22]dv2
where g[11], g[12], g[22], are magnitudes which depend in a perfectly definite way
on u and v. The magnitudes g[11], g[12] and g[22], determine the behaviour of the
rods relative to the u-curves and v-curves, and thus also relative to the surface of
the table. For the case in which the points of the surface considered form a
Euclidean continuum with reference to the measuring-rods, but only in this case, it
is possible to draw the u-curves and v-curves and to attach numbers to them, in
such a manner, that we simply have :
ds2 = du2 + dv2
Under these conditions, the u-curves and v-curves are straight lines in the sense of
Euclidean geometry, and they are perpendicular to each other. Here the Gaussian
coordinates are samply Cartesian ones. It is clear that Gauss co-ordinates are
nothing more than an association of two sets of numbers with the points of the
surface considered, of such a nature that numerical values differing very slightly
from each other are associated with neighbouring points " in space."
So far, these considerations hold for a continuum of two dimensions. But the
Gaussian method can be applied also to a continuum of three, four or more
dimensions. If, for instance, a continuum of four dimensions be supposed available,
we may represent it in the following way. With every point of the continuum, we
associate arbitrarily four numbers, x[1], x[2], x[3], x[4], which are known as " co-
ordinates." Adjacent points correspond to adjacent values of the coordinates. If a
distance ds is associated with the adjacent points P and P1, this distance being
measurable and well defined from a physical point of view, then the following
formula holds:
ds2 = g[11]dx[1]^2 + 2g[12]dx[1]dx[2] . . . . g[44]dx[4]^2,
where the magnitudes g[11], etc., have values which vary with the position in the
continuum. Only when the continuum is a Euclidean one is it possible to associate
the co-ordinates x[1] . . x[4]. with the points of the continuum so that we have
simply
ds2 = dx[1]^2 + dx[2]^2 + dx[3]^2 + dx[4]^2.
In this case relations hold in the four-dimensional continuum which are analogous
to those holding in our three-dimensional measurements.
However, the Gauss treatment for ds2 which we have given above is not always
possible. It is only possible when sufficiently small regions of the continuum under
consideration may be regarded as Euclidean continua. For example, this obviously
holds in the case of the marble slab of the table and local variation of temperature.
The temperature is practically constant for a small part of the slab, and thus the
geometrical behaviour of the rods is almost as it ought to be according to the rules
of Euclidean geometry. Hence the imperfections of the construction of squares in
the previous section do not show themselves clearly until this construction is
extended over a considerable portion of the surface of the table.
We can sum this up as follows: Gauss invented a method for the mathematical
treatment of continua in general, in which " size-relations " (" distances " between
neighbouring points) are defined. To every point of a continuum are assigned as
many numbers (Gaussian coordinates) as the continuum has dimensions. This is
done in such a way, that only one meaning can be attached to the assignment, and
that numbers (Gaussian coordinates) which differ by an indefinitely small amount
are assigned to adjacent points. The Gaussian coordinate system is a logical
generalisation of the Cartesian co-ordinate system. It is also applicable to non-
Euclidean continua, but only when, with respect to the defined "size" or "distance,"
small parts of the continuum under consideration behave more nearly like a
Euclidean system, the smaller the part of the continuum under our notice.
THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE SPEICAL THEORY OF
RELATIVITY CONSIDERED AS A EUCLIDEAN CONTINUUM
We are now in a position to formulate more exactly the idea of Minkowski, which
was only vaguely indicated in Section 17. In accordance with the special theory of
relativity, certain co-ordinate systems are given preference for the description of
the four-dimensional, space-time continuum. We called these " Galileian co-
ordinate systems." For these systems, the four co-ordinates x, y, z, t, which
determine an event or — in other words, a point of the four-dimensional continuum
— are defined physically in a simple manner, as set forth in detail in the first part
of this book. For the transition from one Galileian system to another, which is
moving uniformly with reference to the first, the equations of the Lorentz
transformation are valid. These last form the basis for the derivation of deductions
from the special theory of relativity, and in themselves they are nothing more than
the expression of the universal validity of the law of transmission of light for all
Galileian systems of reference.
Minkowski found that the Lorentz transformations satisfy the following simple
conditions. Let us consider two neighbouring events, the relative position of which
in the four-dimensional continuum is given with respect to a Galileian reference-
body K by the space co-ordinate differences dx, dy, dz and the time-difference dt.
With reference to a second Galileian system we shall suppose that the
corresponding differences for these two events are dx1, dy1, dz1, dt1. Then these
magnitudes always fulfil the condition*
dx2 + dy2 + dz2 - c^2dt2 = dx1 2 + dy1 2 + dz1 2 - c^2dt1 2.
The validity of the Lorentz transformation follows from this condition. We can
express this as follows: The magnitude
ds2 = dx2 + dy2 + dz2 - c^2dt2,
which belongs to two adjacent points of the four-dimensional space-time
continuum, has the same value for all selected (Galileian) reference-bodies. If we
replace x, y, z, sq. rt. -I . ct , by x[1], x[2], x[3], x[4], we also obtaill the result that
ds2 = dx[1]^2 + dx[2]^2 + dx[3]^2 + dx[4]^2.
is independent of the choice of the body of reference. We call the magnitude ds the
" distance " apart of the two events or four-dimensional points.
Thus, if we choose as time-variable the imaginary variable sq. rt. -I . ct instead of
the real quantity t, we can regard the space-time contintium — accordance with the
special theory of relativity — as a ", Euclidean " four-dimensional continuum, a
result which follows from the considerations of the preceding section.
Notes
*) Cf. Appendixes I and 2. The relations which are derived there for the co-
ordlnates themselves are valid also for co-ordinate differences, and thus also for co-
ordinate differentials (indefinitely small differences).
THE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF
REALTIIVTY IS NOT A ECULIDEAN CONTINUUM
In the first part of this book we were able to make use of space-time co-ordinates
which allowed of a simple and direct physical interpretation, and which, according
to Section 26, can be regarded as four-dimensional Cartesian co-ordinates. This
was possible on the basis of the law of the constancy of the velocity of tight. But
according to Section 21 the general theory of relativity cannot retain this law. On
the contrary, we arrived at the result that according to this latter theory the velocity
of light must always depend on the co-ordinates when a gravitational field is
present. In connection with a specific illustration in Section 23, we found that the
presence of a gravitational field invalidates the definition of the coordinates and the
ifine, which led us to our objective in the special theory of relativity.
In view of the resuIts of these considerations we are led to the conviction that,
according to the general principle of relativity, the space-time continuum cannot be
regarded as a Euclidean one, but that here we have the general case, corresponding
to the marble slab with local variations of temperature, and with which we made
acquaintance as an example of a two-dimensional continuum. Just as it was there
impossible to construct a Cartesian co-ordinate system from equal rods, so here it is
impossible to build up a system (reference-body) from rigid bodies and clocks,
which shall be of such a nature that measuring-rods and clocks, arranged rigidly
with respect to one another, shaIll indicate position and time directly. Such was the
essence of the difficulty with which we were confronted in Section 23.
But the considerations of Sections 25 and 26 show us the way to surmount this
difficulty. We refer the fourdimensional space-time continuum in an arbitrary
manner to Gauss co-ordinates. We assign to every point of the continuum (event)
four numbers, x[1], x[2], x[3], x[4] (co-ordinates), which have not the least direct
physical significance, but only serve the purpose of numbering the points of the
continuum in a definite but arbitrary manner. This arrangement does not even need
to be of such a kind that we must regard x[1], x[2], x[3], as "space" co-ordinates
and x[4], as a " time " co-ordinate.
The reader may think that such a description of the world would be quite
inadequate. What does it mean to assign to an event the particular co-ordinates
x[1], x[2], x[3], x[4], if in themselves these co-ordinates have no significance ?
More careful consideration shows, however, that this anxiety is unfounded. Let us
consider, for instance, a material point with any kind of motion. If this point had
only a momentary existence without duration, then it would to described in space-
time by a single system of values x[1], x[2], x[3], x[4]. Thus its permanent
existence must be characterised by an infinitely large number of such systems of
values, the co-ordinate values of which are so close together as to give continuity;
corresponding to the material point, we thus have a (uni-dimensional) line in the
four-dimensional continuum. In the same way, any such lines in our continuum
correspond to many points in motion. The only statements having regard to these
points which can claim a physical existence are in reality the statements about their
encounters. In our mathematical treatment, such an encounter is expressed in the
fact that the two lines which represent the motions of the points in question have a
particular system of co-ordinate values, x[1], x[2], x[3], x[4], in common. After
mature consideration the reader will doubtless admit that in reality such encounters
constitute the only actual evidence of a time-space nature with which we meet in
physical statements.
When we were describing the motion of a material point relative to a body of
reference, we stated nothing more than the encounters of this point with particular
points of the reference-body. We can also determine the corresponding values of
the time by the observation of encounters of the body with clocks, in conjunction
with the observation of the encounter of the hands of clocks with particular points
on the dials. It is just the same in the case of space-measurements by means of
measuring-rods, as a litttle consideration will show.
The following statements hold generally : Every physical description resolves itself
into a number of statements, each of which refers to the space-time coincidence of
two events A and B. In terms of Gaussian co-ordinates, every such statement is
expressed by the agreement of their four co-ordinates x[1], x[2], x[3], x[4]. Thus in
reality, the description of the time-space continuum by means of Gauss co-
ordinates completely replaces the description with the aid of a body of reference,
without suffering from the defects of the latter mode of description; it is not tied
down to the Euclidean character of the continuum which has to be represented.
EXACT FORMULATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF
RELATIVITY
We are now in a position to replace the pro. visional formulation of the general
principle of relativity given in Section 18 by an exact formulation. The form there
used, "All bodies of reference K, K1, etc., are equivalent for the description of
natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever may be
their state of motion," cannot be maintained, because the use of rigid reference-
bodies, in the sense of the method followed in the special theory of relativity, is in
general not possible in space-time description. The Gauss co-ordinate system has to
take the place of the body of reference. The following statement corresponds to the
fundamental idea of the general principle of relativity: "All Gaussian co-ordinate
systems are essentially equivalent for the formulation of the general laws of
nature."
We can state this general principle of relativity in still another form, which renders
it yet more clearly intelligible than it is when in the form of the natural extension of
the special principle of relativity. According to the special theory of relativity, the
equations which express the general laws of nature pass over into equations of the
same form when, by making use of the Lorentz transformation, we replace the
space-time variables x, y, z, t, of a (Galileian) reference-body K by the space-time
variables x1, y1, z1, t1, of a new reference-body K1. According to the general
theory of relativity, on the other hand, by application of arbitrary substitutions of
the Gauss variables x[1], x[2], x[3], x[4], the equations must pass over into
equations of the same form; for every transformation (not only the Lorentz
transformation) corresponds to the transition of one Gauss co-ordinate system into
another.
If we desire to adhere to our "old-time" three-dimensional view of things, then we
can characterise the development which is being undergone by the fundamental
idea of the general theory of relativity as follows : The special theory of relativity
has reference to Galileian domains, i.e. to those in which no gravitational field
exists. In this connection a Galileian reference-body serves as body of reference,
i.e. a rigid body the state of motion of which is so chosen that the Galileian law of
the uniform rectilinear motion of "isolated" material points holds relatively to it.
Certain considerations suggest that we should refer the same Galileian domains to
non-Galileian reference-bodies also. A gravitational field of a special kind is then
present with respect to these bodies (cf. Sections 20 and 23).
In gravitational fields there are no such things as rigid bodies with Euclidean
properties; thus the fictitious rigid body of reference is of no avail in the general
theory of relativity. The motion of clocks is also influenced by gravitational fields,
and in such a way that a physical definition of time which is made directly with the
aid of clocks has by no means the same degree of plausibility as in the special
theory of relativity.
For this reason non-rigid reference-bodies are used, which are as a whole not only
moving in any way whatsoever, but which also suffer alterations in form ad lib.
during their motion. Clocks, for which the law of motion is of any kind, however
irregular, serve for the definition of time. We have to imagine each of these clocks
fixed at a point on the non-rigid reference-body. These clocks satisfy only the one
condition, that the "readings" which are observed simultaneously on adjacent
clocks (in space) differ from each other by an indefinitely small amount. This non-
rigid reference-body, which might appropriately be termed a "reference-mollusc",
is in the main equivalent to a Gaussian four-dimensional co-ordinate system chosen
arbitrarily. That which gives the "mollusc" a certain comprehensibility as compared
with the Gauss co-ordinate system is the (really unjustified) formal retention of the
separate existence of the space co-ordinates as opposed to the time co-ordinate.
Every point on the mollusc is treated as a space-point, and every material point
which is at rest relatively to it as at rest, so long as the mollusc is considered as
reference-body. The general principle of relativity requires that all these molluscs
can be used as reference-bodies with equal right and equal success in the
formulation of the general laws of nature; the laws themselves must be quite
independent of the choice of mollusc.
The great power possessed by the general principle of relativity lies in the
comprehensive limitation which is imposed on the laws of nature in consequence of
what we have seen above.
THE SOLUTION OF THE PROBLEM OF GRAVITATION ON THE BASIS
OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY
If the reader has followed all our previous considerations, he will have no further
difficulty in understanding the methods leading to the solution of the problem of
gravitation.
We start off on a consideration of a Galileian domain, i.e. a domain in which there
is no gravitational field relative to the Galileian reference-body K. The behaviour
of measuring-rods and clocks with reference to K is known from the special theory
of relativity, likewise the behaviour of "isolated" material points; the latter move
uniformly and in straight lines.
Now let us refer this domain to a random Gauss coordinate system or to a
"mollusc" as reference-body K1. Then with respect to K1 there is a gravitational
field G (of a particular kind). We learn the behaviour of measuring-rods and clocks
and also of freely-moving material points with reference to K1 simply by
mathematical transformation. We interpret this behaviour as the behaviour of
measuring-rods, docks and material points tinder the influence of the gravitational
field G. Hereupon we introduce a hypothesis: that the influence of the gravitational
field on measuringrods, clocks and freely-moving material points continues to take
place according to the same laws, even in the case where the prevailing
gravitational field is not derivable from the Galfleian special care, simply by means
of a transformation of co-ordinates.
The next step is to investigate the space-time behaviour of the gravitational field G,
which was derived from the Galileian special case simply by transformation of the
coordinates. This behaviour is formulated in a law, which is always valid, no matter
how the reference-body (mollusc) used in the description may be chosen.
This law is not yet the general law of the gravitational field, since the gravitational
field under consideration is of a special kind. In order to find out the general law-
of-field of gravitation we still require to obtain a generalisation of the law as found
above. This can be obtained without caprice, however, by taking into consideration
the following demands:
(a) The required generalisation must likewise satisfy the general postulate of
relativity.
(b) If there is any matter in the domain under consideration, only its inertial mass,
and thus according to Section 15 only its energy is of importance for its etfect in
exciting a field.
(c) Gravitational field and matter together must satisfy the law of the conservation
of energy (and of impulse).
Finally, the general principle of relativity permits us to determine the influence of
the gravitational field on the course of all those processes which take place
according to known laws when a gravitational field is absent i.e. which have
already been fitted into the frame of the special theory of relativity. In this
connection we proceed in principle according to the method which has already
been explained for measuring-rods, clocks and freely moving material points.
The theory of gravitation derived in this way from the general postulate of relativity
excels not only in its beauty ; nor in removing the defect attaching to classical
mechanics which was brought to light in Section 21; nor in interpreting the
empirical law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass ; but it has also
already explained a result of observation in astronomy, against which classical
mechanics is powerless.
If we confine the application of the theory to the case where the gravitational fields
can be regarded as being weak, and in which all masses move with respect to the
coordinate system with velocities which are small compared with the velocity of
light, we then obtain as a first approximation the Newtonian theory. Thus the latter
theory is obtained here without any particular assumption, whereas Newton had to
introduce the hypothesis that the force of attraction between mutually attracting
material points is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
If we increase the accuracy of the calculation, deviations from the theory of
Newton make their appearance, practically all of which must nevertheless escape
the test of observation owing to their smallness.
We must draw attention here to one of these deviations. According to Newton's
theory, a planet moves round the sun in an ellipse, which would permanently
maintain its position with respect to the fixed stars, if we could disregard the
motion of the fixed stars themselves and the action of the other planets under
consideration. Thus, if we correct the observed motion of the planets for these two
influences, and if Newton's theory be strictly correct, we ought to obtain for the
orbit of the planet an ellipse, which is fixed with reference to the fixed stars. This
deduction, which can be tested with great accuracy, has been confirmed for all the
planets save one, with the precision that is capable of being obtained by the
delicacy of observation attainable at the present time. The sole exception is
Mercury, the planet which lies nearest the sun. Since the time of Leverrier, it has
been known that the ellipse corresponding to the orbit of Mercury, after it has been
corrected for the influences mentioned above, is not stationary with respect to the
fixed stars, but that it rotates exceedingly slowly in the plane of the orbit and in the
sense of the orbital motion. The value obtained for this rotary movement of the
orbital ellipse was 43 seconds of arc per century, an amount ensured to be correct
to within a few seconds of arc. This effect can be explained by means of classical
mechanics only on the assumption of hypotheses which have little probability, and
which were devised solely for this purponse.
On the basis of the general theory of relativity, it is found that the ellipse of every
planet round the sun must necessarily rotate in the manner indicated above ; that for
all the planets, with the exception of Mercury, this rotation is too small to be
detected with the delicacy of observation possible at the present time ; but that in
the case of Mercury it must amount to 43 seconds of arc per century, a result which
is strictly in agreement with observation.
Apart from this one, it has hitherto been possible to make only two deductions from
the theory which admit of being tested by observation, to wit, the curvature of light
rays by the gravitational field of the sun,*x and a displacement of the spectral lines
of light reaching us from large stars, as compared with the corresponding lines for
light produced in an analogous manner terrestrially (i.e. by the same kind of
atom).** These two deductions from the theory have both been confirmed.
Notes
*) First observed by Eddington and others in 1919. (Cf. Appendix
III, pp. 126-129).
**) Established by Adams in 1924. (Cf. p. 132)
PART III
CONSIDERATIONS ON THE UNIVERSE AS A WHOLE
COSMOLOGICAL DIFFICULTIES OF NEWTON'S THEORY
Part from the difficulty discussed in Section 21, there is a second fundamental
difficulty attending classical celestial mechanics, which, to the best of my
knowledge, was first discussed in detail by the astronomer Seeliger. If we
ponder over the question as to how the universe, considered as a whole, is to
be regarded, the first answer that suggests itself to us is surely this: As regards
space (and time) the universe is infinite. There are stars everywhere, so that
the density of matter, although very variable in detail, is nevertheless on the
average everywhere the same. In other words: However far we might travel
through space, we should find everywhere an attenuated swarm of fixed stars
of approrimately the same kind and density.
This view is not in harmony with the theory of Newton. The latter theory rather
requires that the universe should have a kind of centre in which the density of the
stars is a maximum, and that as we proceed outwards from this centre the group-
density of the stars should diminish, until finally, at great distances, it is succeeded
by an infinite region of emptiness. The stellar universe ought to be a finite island in
the infinite ocean of space.*
This conception is in itself not very satisfactory. It is still less satisfactory because
it leads to the result that the light emitted by the stars and also individual stars of
the stellar system are perpetually passing out into infinite space, never to return,
and without ever again coming into interaction with other objects of nature. Such a
finite material universe would be destined to become gradually but systematically
impoverished.
In order to escape this dilemma, Seeliger suggested a modification of Newton's
law, in which he assumes that for great distances the force of attraction between
two masses diminishes more rapidly than would result from the inverse square law.
In this way it is possible for the mean density of matter to be constant everywhere,
even to infinity, without infinitely large gravitational fields being produced. We
thus free ourselves from the distasteful conception that the material universe ought
to possess something of the nature of a centre. Of course we purchase our
emancipation from the fundamental difficulties mentioned, at the cost of a
modification and complication of Newton's law which has neither empirical nor
theoretical foundation. We can imagine innumerable laws which would serve the
same purpose, without our being able to state a reason why one of them is to be
preferred to the others ; for any one of these laws would be founded just as little on
more general theoretical principles as is the law of Newton.
Notes
*) Proof — According to the theory of Newton, the number of "lines of force"
which come from infinity and terminate in a mass m is proportional to the mass m.
If, on the average, the Mass density p[0] is constant throughout tithe universe, then
a sphere of volume V will enclose the average man p[0]V. Thus the number of
lines of force passing through the surface F of the sphere into its interior is
proportional to p[0] V. For unit area of the surface of the sphere the number of lines
of force which enters the sphere is thus proportional to p[0] V/F or to p[0]R. Hence
the intensity of the field at the surface would ultimately become infinite with
increasing radius R of the sphere, which is impossible.
THE POSSIBILITY OF A "FINITE" AND YET "UNBOUNDED"
UNIVERSE
But speculations on the structure of the universe also move in quite another
direction. The development of non-Euclidean geometry led to the recognition of the
fact, that we can cast doubt on the infiniteness of our space without coming into
conflict with the laws of thought or with experience (Riemann, Helmholtz). These
questions have already been treated in detail and with unsurpassable lucidity by
Helmholtz and Poincaré, whereas I can only touch on them briefly here.
In the first place, we imagine an existence in two dimensional space. Flat beings
with flat implements, and in particular flat rigid measuring-rods, are free to move in
a plane. For them nothing exists outside of this plane: that which they observe to
happen to themselves and to their flat " things " is the all-inclusive reality of their
plane. In particular, the constructions of plane Euclidean geometry can be carried
out by means of the rods e.g. the lattice construction, considered in Section 24. In
contrast to ours, the universe of these beings is two-dimensional; but, like ours, it
extends to infinity. In their universe there is room for an infinite number of
identical squares made up of rods, i.e. its volume (surface) is infinite. If these
beings say their universe is " plane," there is sense in the statement, because they
mean that they can perform the constructions of plane Euclidean geometry with
their rods. In this connection the individual rods always represent the same
distance, independently of their position.
Let us consider now a second two-dimensional existence, but this time on a
spherical surface instead of on a plane. The flat beings with their measuring-rods
and other objects fit exactly on this surface and they are unable to leave it. Their
whole universe of observation extends exclusively over the surface of the sphere.
Are these beings able to regard the geometry of their universe as being plane
geometry and their rods withal as the realisation of " distance " ? They cannot do
this. For if they attempt to realise a straight line, they will obtain a curve, which we
" three-dimensional beings " designate as a great circle, i.e. a self-contained line of
definite finite length, which can be measured up by means of a measuring-rod.
Similarly, this universe has a finite area that can be compared with the area, of a
square constructed with rods. The great charm resulting from this consideration lies
in the recognition of the fact that the universe of these beings is finite and yet has
no limits.
But the spherical-surface beings do not need to go on a world-tour in order to
perceive that they are not living in a Euclidean universe. They can convince
themselves of this on every part of their " world," provided they do not use too
small a piece of it. Starting from a point, they draw " straight lines " (arcs of circles
as judged in three dimensional space) of equal length in all directions. They will
call the line joining the free ends of these lines a " circle." For a plane surface, the
ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter, both lengths being measured
with the same rod, is, according to Euclidean geometry of the plane, equal to a
constant value p, which is independent of the diameter of the circle. On their
spherical surface our flat beings would find for this ratio the value
i.e. a smaller value than p, the difference being the more considerable, the greater is
the radius of the circle in comparison with the radius R of the " world-sphere." By
means of this relation the spherical beings can determine the radius of their
universe (" world "), even when only a relatively small part of their worldsphere is
available for their measurements. But if this part is very small indeed, they will no
longer be able to demonstrate that they are on a spherical " world " and not on a
Euclidean plane, for a small part of a spherical surface differs only slightly from a
piece of a plane of the same size.
Thus if the spherical surface beings are living on a planet of which the solar system
occupies only a negligibly small part of the spherical universe, they have no means
of determining whether they are living in a finite or in an infinite universe, because
the " piece of universe " to which they have access is in both cases practically
plane, or Euclidean. It follows directly from this discussion, that for our sphere-
beings the circumference of a circle first increases with the radius until the "
circumference of the universe " is reached, and that it thenceforward gradually
decreases to zero for still further increasing values of the radius. During this
process the area of the circle continues to increase more and more, until finally it
becomes equal to the total area of the whole " world-sphere."
Perhaps the reader will wonder why we have placed our " beings " on a sphere
rather than on another closed surface. But this choice has its justification in the fact
that, of all closed surfaces, the sphere is unique in possessing the property that all
points on it are equivalent. I admit that the ratio of the circumference c of a circle to
its radius r depends on r, but for a given value of r it is the same for all points of the
" worldsphere "; in other words, the " world-sphere " is a " surface of constant
curvature."
To this two-dimensional sphere-universe there is a three-dimensional analogy,
namely, the three-dimensional spherical space which was discovered by Riemann.
its points are likewise all equivalent. It possesses a finite volume, which is
determined by its "radius" (2p2R3). Is it possible to imagine a spherical space? To
imagine a space means nothing else than that we imagine an epitome of our " space
" experience, i.e. of experience that we can have in the movement of " rigid "
bodies. In this sense we can imagine a spherical space.
Suppose we draw lines or stretch strings in all directions from a point, and mark off
from each of these the distance r with a measuring-rod. All the free end-points of
these lengths lie on a spherical surface. We can specially measure up the area (F) of
this surface by means of a square made up of measuring-rods. If the universe is
Euclidean, then F = 4pR2 ; if it is spherical, then F is always less than 4pR2. With
increasing values of r, F increases from zero up to a maximum value which is
determined by the " world-radius," but for still further increasing values of r, the
area gradually diminishes to zero. At first, the straight lines which radiate from the
starting point diverge farther and farther from one another, but later they approach
each other, and finally they run together again at a "counter-point" to the starting
point. Under such conditions they have traversed the whole spherical space. It is
easily seen that the three-dimensional spherical space is quite analogous to the two-
dimensional spherical surface. It is finite (i.e. of finite volume), and has no bounds.
It may be mentioned that there is yet another kind of curved space: " elliptical
space." It can be regarded as a curved space in which the two " counter-points " are
identical (indistinguishable from each other). An elliptical universe can thus be
considered to some extent as a curved universe possessing central symmetry.
It follows from what has been said, that closed spaces without limits are
conceivable. From amongst these, the spherical space (and the elliptical) excels in
its simplicity, since all points on it are equivalent. As a result of this discussion, a
most interesting question arises for astronomers and physicists, and that is whether
the universe in which we live is infinite, or whether it is finite in the manner of the
spherical universe. Our experience is far from being sufficient to enable us to
answer this question. But the general theory of relativity permits of our answering
it with a moduate degree of certainty, and in this connection the difficulty
mentioned in Section 30 finds its solution.
THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL
THEORY OF RELATIVITY
According to the general theory of relativity, the geometrical properties of space
are not independent, but they are determined by matter. Thus we can draw
conclusions about the geometrical structure of the universe only if we base our
considerations on the state of the matter as being something that is known. We
know from experience that, for a suitably chosen co-ordinate system, the velocities
of the stars are small as compared with the velocity of transmission of light. We
can thus as a rough approximation arrive at a conclusion as to the nature of the
universe as a whole, if we treat the matter as being at rest.
We already know from our previous discussion that the behaviour of measuring-
rods and clocks is influenced by gravitational fields, i.e. by the distribution of
matter. This in itself is sufficient to exclude the possibility of the exact validity of
Euclidean geometry in our universe. But it is conceivable that our universe differs
only slightly from a Euclidean one, and this notion seems all the more probable,
since calculations show that the metrics of surrounding space is influenced only to
an exceedingly small extent by masses even of the magnitude of our sun. We might
imagine that, as regards geometry, our universe behaves analogously to a surface
which is irregularly curved in its individual parts, but which nowhere departs
appreciably from a plane: something like the rippled surface of a lake. Such a
universe might fittingly be called a quasi-Euclidean universe. As regards its space it
would be infinite. But calculation shows that in a quasi-Euclidean universe the
average density of matter would necessarily be nil. Thus such a universe could not
be inhabited by matter everywhere ; it would present to us that unsatisfactory
picture which we portrayed in Section 30.
If we are to have in the universe an average density of matter which differs from
zero, however small may be that difference, then the universe cannot be quasi-
Euclidean. On the contrary, the results of calculation indicate that if matter be
distributed uniformly, the universe would necessarily be spherical (or elliptical).
Since in reality the detailed distribution of matter is not uniform, the real universe
will deviate in individual parts from the spherical, i.e. the universe will be quasi-
spherical. But it will be necessarily finite. In fact, the theory supplies us with a
simple connection * between the space-expanse of the universe and the average
density of matter in it.
Notes
*) For the radius R of the universe we obtain the equation
The use of the C.G.S. system in this equation gives 2/k = 1^.08.10^27; p is the
average density of the matter and k is a constant connected with the Newtonian
constant of gravitation.
APPENDIX I
SIMPLE DERIVATION OF THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATION (SUPPLEMENTARY TO
SECTION 11)
For the relative orientation of the co-ordinate systems indicated in Fig. 2, the x-axes
of both systems pernumently coincide. In the present case we can divide the
problem into parts by considering first only events which are localised on the x-
axis. Any such event is represented with respect to the co-ordinate system K by the
abscissa x and the time t, and with respect to the system K1 by the abscissa x' and
the time t'. We require to find x' and t' when x and t are given.
A light-signal, which is proceeding along the positive axis of x, is transmitted
according to the equation
x = ct
or
x - ct = 0 . . . (1).
Since the same light-signal has to be transmitted relative to K1 with the velocity c,
the propagation relative to the system K1 will be represented by the analogous
formula
x' - ct' = O . . . (2)
Those space-time points (events) which satisfy (x) must also satisfy (2). Obviously
this will be the case when the relation
(x' - ct') = l (x - ct) . . . (3).
is fulfilled in general, where l indicates a constant ; for, according to (3), the
disappearance of (x - ct) involves the disappearance of (x' - ct').
If we apply quite similar considerations to light rays which are being transmitted
along the negative x-axis, we obtain the condition
(x' + ct') = µ(x + ct) . . . (4).
By adding (or subtracting) equations (3) and (4), and introducing for convenience
the constants a and b in place of the constants l and µ, where
and
we obtain the equations
We should thus have the solution of our problem, if the constants a and b were
known. These result from the following discussion.
For the origin of K1 we have permanently x' = 0, and hence according to the first of
the equations (5)
If we call v the velocity with which the origin of K1 is moving relative to K, we
then have
The same value v can be obtained from equations (5), if we calculate the velocity
of another point of K1 relative to K, or the velocity (directed towards the negative
x-axis) of a point of K with respect to K'. In short, we can designate v as the
relative velocity of the two systems.
Furthermore, the principle of relativity teaches us that, as judged from K, the length
of a unit measuring-rod which is at rest with reference to K1 must be exactly the
same as the length, as judged from K', of a unit measuring-rod which is at rest
relative to K. In order to see how the points of the x-axis appear as viewed from K,
we only require to take a " snapshot " of K1 from K; this means that we have to
insert a particular value of t (time of K), e.g. t = 0. For this value of t we then obtain
from the first of the equations (5)
x' = ax
Two points of the x'-axis which are separated by the distance Dx' = I when
measured in the K1 system are thus separated in our instantaneous photograph by
the distance
But if the snapshot be taken from K'(t' = 0), and if we eliminate t from the
equations (5), taking into account the expression (6), we obtain
From this we conclude that two points on the x-axis separated by the distance I
(relative to K) will be represented on our snapshot by the distance
But from what has been said, the two snapshots must be identical; hence Dx in (7)
must be equal to Dx' in (7a), so that we obtain
The equations (6) and (7b) determine the constants a and b. By inserting the values
of these constants in (5), we obtain the first and the fourth of the equations given in
Section 11.
Thus we have obtained the Lorentz transformation for events on the x-axis. It
satisfies the condition
x'2 - c^2t'2 = x2 - c^2t2 . . . (8a).
The extension of this result, to include events which take place outside the x-axis,
is obtained by retaining equations (8) and supplementing them by the relations
In this way we satisfy the postulate of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo for rays of light of arbitrary direction, both for the system K and for the
system K'. This may be shown in the following manner.
We suppose a light-signal sent out from the origin of K at the time t = 0. It will be
propagated according to the equation
or, if we square this equation, according to the equation
x2 + y2 + z2 = c^2t2 = 0 . . . (10).
It is required by the law of propagation of light, in conjunction with the postulate of
relativity, that the transmission of the signal in question should take place — as
judged from K1 — in accordance with the corresponding formula
r' = ct'
or,
x'2 + y'2 + z'2 - c^2t'2 = 0 . . . (10a).
In order that equation (10a) may be a consequence of equation (10), we must have
x'2 + y'2 + z'2 - c^2t'2 = s (x2 + y2 + z2 - c^2t2) (11).
Since equation (8a) must hold for points on the x-axis, we thus have s = I. It is
easily seen that the Lorentz transformation really satisfies equation (11) for s = I;
for (11) is a consequence of (8a) and (9), and hence also of (8) and (9). We have
thus derived the Lorentz transformation.
The Lorentz transformation represented by (8) and (9) still requires to be
generalised. Obviously it is immaterial whether the axes of K1 be chosen so that
they are spatially parallel to those of K. It is also not essential that the velocity of
translation of K1 with respect to K should be in the direction of the x-axis. A
simple consideration shows that we are able to construct the Lorentz transformation
in this general sense from two kinds of transformations, viz. from Lorentz
transformations in the special sense and from purely spatial transformations. which
corresponds to the replacement of the rectangular co-ordinate system by a new
system with its axes pointing in other directions.
Mathematically, we can characterise the generalised Lorentz transformation thus :
It expresses x', y', x', t', in terms of linear homogeneous functions of x, y, x, t, of
such a kind that the relation
x'2 + y'2 + z'2 - c^2t'2 = x2 + y2 + z2 - c^2t2 (11a).
is satisficd identically. That is to say: If we substitute their expressions in x, y, x, t,
in place of x', y', x', t', on the left-hand side, then the left-hand side of (11a) agrees
with the right-hand side.
APPENDIX II
MINKOWSKI'S FOUR-DIMENSIONAL SPACE ("WORLD") (SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 17)
We can characterise the Lorentz transformation still more simply if we introduce
the imaginary eq. 25 in place of t, as time-variable. If, in accordance with this, we
insert
x
[
1
]
x
[
2
]
x
[
3
]
x
[
4
]
e
q
.
2
5
and similarly for the accented system K1, then the condition which is identically
satisfied by the transformation can be expressed thus :
x[1]'2 + x[2]'2 + x[3]'2 + x[4]'2 = x[1]^2 + x[2]^2 + x[3]^2 + x[4]^2
(12).
That is, by the afore-mentioned choice of " coordinates," (11a) [see the end of
Appendix II] is transformed into this equation.
We see from (12) that the imaginary time co-ordinate x[4], enters into the condition
of transformation in exactly the same way as the space co-ordinates x[1], x[2], x[3].
It is due to this fact that, according to the theory of relativity, the " time "x[4],
enters into natural laws in the same form as the space co ordinates x[1], x[2], x[3].
A four-dimensional continuum described by the "co-ordinates" x[1], x[2], x[3],
x[4], was called "world" by Minkowski, who also termed a point-event a " world-
point." From a "happening" in three-dimensional space, physics becomes, as it
were, an " existence " in the four-dimensional " world."
This four-dimensional " world " bears a close similarity to the three-dimensional "
space " of (Euclidean) analytical geometry. If we introduce into the latter a new
Cartesian co-ordinate system (x'[1], x'[2], x'[3]) with the same origin, then x'[1],
x'[2], x'[3], are linear homogeneous functions of x[1], x[2], x[3] which identically
satisfy the equation
x'[1]^2 + x'[2]^2 + x'[3]^2 = x[1]^2 + x[2]^2 + x[3]^2
The analogy with (12) is a complete one. We can regard Minkowski's " world " in a
formal manner as a four-dimensional Euclidean space (with an imaginary time
coordinate) ; the Lorentz transformation corresponds to a " rotation " of the co-
ordinate system in the fourdimensional " world."
APPENDIX III
THE EXPERIMENTAL CONFIRMATION OF THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of
evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories
are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of
individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws
can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a
science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is,
as it were, a purely empirical enterprise.
But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it
slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the
development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial
stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of
arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of
thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental
assumptions, the so-called axioms. We call such a system of thought a theory. The
theory finds the justification for its existence in the fact that it correlates a large
number of single observations, and it is just here that the " truth " of the theory lies.
Corresponding to the same complex of empirical data, there may be several
theories, which differ from one another to a considerable extent. But as regards the
deductions from the theories which are capable of being tested, the agreement
between the theories may be so complete that it becomes difficult to find any
deductions in which the two theories differ from each other. As an example, a case
of general interest is available in the province of biology, in the Darwinian theory
of the development of species by selection in the struggle for existence, and in the
theory of development which is based on the hypothesis of the hereditary
transmission of acquired characters.
We have another instance of far-reaching agreement between the deductions from
two theories in Newtonian mechanics on the one hand, and the general theory of
relativity on the other. This agreement goes so far, that up to the preseat we have
been able to find only a few deductions from the general theory of relativity which
are capable of investigation, and to which the physics of pre-relativity days does
not also lead, and this despite the profound difference in the fundamental
assumptions of the two theories. In what follows, we shall again consider these
important deductions, and we shall also discuss the empirical evidence appertaining
to them which has hitherto been obtained.
(a) Motion of the Perihelion of Mercury
According to Newtonian mechanics and Newton's law of gravitation, a planet
which is revolving round the sun would describe an ellipse round the latter, or,
more correctly, round the common centre of gravity of the sun and the planet. In
such a system, the sun, or the common centre of gravity, lies in one of the foci of
the orbital ellipse in such a manner that, in the course of a planet-year, the distance
sun-planet grows from a minimum to a maximum, and then decreases again to a
minimum. If instead of Newton's law we insert a somewhat different law of
attraction into the calculation, we find that, according to this new law, the motion
would still take place in such a manner that the distance sun-planet exhibits
periodic variations; but in this case the angle described by the line joining sun and
planet during such a period (from perihelion—closest proximity to the sun—to
perihelion) would differ from 360^0. The line of the orbit would not then be a
closed one but in the course of time it would fill up an annular part of the orbital
plane, viz. between the circle of least and the circle of greatest distance of the
planet from the sun.
According also to the general theory of relativity, which differs of course from the
theory of Newton, a small variation from the Newton-Kepler motion of a planet in
its orbit should take place, and in such away, that the angle described by the radius
sun-planet between one perhelion and the next should exceed that corresponding to
one complete revolution by an amount given by
(N.B. — One complete revolution corresponds to the angle 2p in the absolute
angular measure customary in physics, and the above expression giver the amount
by which the radius sun-planet exceeds this angle during the interval between one
perihelion and the next.) In this expression a represents the major semi-axis of the
ellipse, e its eccentricity, c the velocity of light, and T the period of revolution of
the planet. Our result may also be stated as follows : According to the general
theory of relativity, the major axis of the ellipse rotates round the sun in the same
sense as the orbital motion of the planet. Theory requires that this rotation should
amount to 43 seconds of arc per century for the planet Mercury, but for the other
Planets of our solar system its magnitude should be so small that it would
necessarily escape detection. *
In point of fact, astronomers have found that the theory of Newton does not suffice
to calculate the observed motion of Mercury with an exactness corresponding to
that of the delicacy of observation attainable at the present time. After taking
account of all the disturbing influences exerted on Mercury by the remaining
planets, it was found (Leverrier: 1859; and Newcomb: 1895) that an unexplained
perihelial movement of the orbit of Mercury remained over, the amount of which
does not differ sensibly from the above mentioned +43 seconds of arc per century.
The uncertainty of the empirical result amounts to a few seconds only.
(b) Deflection of Light by a Gravitational Field
In Section 22 it has been already mentioned that according to the general theory of
relativity, a ray of light will experience a curvature of its path when passing
through a gravitational field, this curvature being similar to that experienced by the
path of a body which is projected through a gravitational field. As a result of this
theory, we should expect that a ray of light which is passing close to a heavenly
body would be deviated towards the latter. For a ray of light which passes the sun
at a distance of D sun-radii from its centre, the angle of deflection (a) should
amount to
It may be added that, according to the theory, half of Figure 05 this deflection is
produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other half by the
geometrical modification (" curvature ") of space caused by the sun.
This result admits of an experimental test by means of the photographic registration
of stars during a total eclipse of the sun. The only reason why we must wait for a
total eclipse is because at every other time the atmosphere is so strongly
illuminated by the light from the sun that the stars situated near the sun's disc are
invisible. The predicted effect can be seen clearly from the accompanying diagram.
If the sun (S) were not present, a star which is practically infinitely distant would
be seen in the direction D[1], as observed front the earth. But as a consequence of
the deflection of light from the star by the sun, the star will be seen in the direction
D[2], i.e. at a somewhat greater distance from the centre of the sun than
corresponds to its real position.
In practice, the question is tested in the following way. The stars in the
neighbourhood of the sun are photographed during a solar eclipse. In addition, a
second photograph of the same stars is taken when the sun is situated at another
position in the sky, i.e. a few months earlier or later. As compared whh the standard
photograph, the positions of the stars on the eclipse-photograph ought to appear
displaced radially outwards (away from the centre of the sun) by an amount
corresponding to the angle a.
We are indebted to the [British] Royal Society and to the Royal Astronomical
Society for the investigation of this important deduction. Undaunted by the [first
world] war and by difficulties of both a material and a psychological nature aroused
by the war, these societies equipped two expeditions — to Sobral (Brazil), and to
the island of Principe (West Africa) — and sent several of Britain's most celebrated
astronomers (Eddington, Cottingham, Crommelin, Davidson), in order to obtain
photographs of the solar eclipse of 29th May, 1919. The relative discrepancies to be
expected between the stellar photographs obtained during the eclipse and the
comparison photographs amounted to a few hundredths of a millimetre only. Thus
great accuracy was necessary in making the adjustments required for the taking of
the photographs, and in their subsequent measurement.
The results of the measurements confirmed the theory in a thoroughly satisfactory
manner. The rectangular components of the observed and of the calculated
deviations of the stars (in seconds of arc) are set forth in the following table of
results :
Table 01: file table01.gif
(c) Displacement of Spectral Lines Towards the Red
In Section 23 it has been shown that in a system K1 which is in rotation with regard
to a Galileian system K, clocks of identical construction, and which are considered
at rest with respect to the rotating reference-body, go at rates which are dependent
on the positions of the clocks. We shall now examine this dependence
quantitatively. A clock, which is situated at a distance r from the centre of the disc,
has a velocity relative to K which is given by
V = wr
where w represents the angular velocity of rotation of the disc K1 with respect to
K. If v[0], represents the number of ticks of the clock per unit time (" rate " of the
clock) relative to K when the clock is at rest, then the " rate " of the clock (v) when
it is moving relative to K with a velocity V, but at rest with respect to the disc, will,
in accordance with Section 12, be given by
or with sufficient accuracy by
This expression may also be stated in the following form:
If we represent the difference of potential of the centrifugal force between the
position of the clock and the centre of the disc by f, i.e. the work, considered
negatively, which must be performed on the unit of mass against the centrifugal
force in order to transport it from the position of the clock on the rotating disc to
the centre of the disc, then we have
From this it follows that
In the first place, we see from this expression that two clocks of identical
construction will go at different rates when situated at different distances from the
centre of the disc. This result is aiso valid from the standpoint of an observer who is
rotating with the disc.
Now, as judged from the disc, the latter is in a gravititional field of potential f,
hence the result we have obtained will hold quite generally for gravitational fields.
Furthermore, we can regard an atom which is emitting spectral lines as a clock, so
that the following statement will hold:
An atom absorbs or emits light of a frequency which is dependent on the potential
of the gravitational field in which it is situated.
The frequency of an atom situated on the surface of a heavenly body will be
somewhat less than the frequency of an atom of the same element which is situated
in free space (or on the surface of a smaller celestial body).
Now f = - K (M/r), where K is Newton's constant of gravitation, and M is the mass
of the heavenly body. Thus a displacement towards the red ought to take place for
spectral lines produced at the surface of stars as compared with the spectral lines of
the same element produced at the surface of the earth, the amount of this
displacement being
For the sun, the displacement towards the red predicted by theory amounts to about
two millionths of the wave-length. A trustworthy calculation is not possible in the
case of the stars, because in general neither the mass M nor the radius r are known.
It is an open question whether or not this effect exists, and at the present time
(1920) astronomers are working with great zeal towards the solution. Owing to the
smallness of the effect in the case of the sun, it is difficult to form an opinion as to
its existence. Whereas Grebe and Bachem (Bonn), as a result of their own
measurements and those of Evershed and Schwarzschild on the cyanogen bands,
have placed the existence of the effect almost beyond doubt, while other
investigators, particularly St. John, have been led to the opposite opinion in
consequence of their measurements.
Mean displacements of lines towards the less refrangible end of the spectrum are
certainly revealed by statistical investigations of the fixed stars ; but up to the
present the examination of the available data does not allow of any definite
decision being arrived at, as to whether or not these displacements are to be
referred in reality to the effect of gravitation. The results of observation have been
collected together, and discussed in detail from the standpoint of the question
which has been engaging our attention here, in a paper by E. Freundlich entitled
"Zur Prüfung der allgemeinen Relativit&umlaut;ts-Theorie" (Die
Naturwissenschaften, 1919, No. 35, p. 520: Julius Springer, Berlin).
At all events, a definite decision will be reached during the next few years. If the
displacement of spectral lines towards the red by the gravitational potential does
not exist, then the general theory of relativity will be untenable. On the other hand,
if the cause of the displacement of spectral lines be definitely traced to the
gravitational potential, then the study of this displacement will furnish us with
important information as to the mass of the heavenly bodies. [5][A]
Notes
*) Especially since the next planet Venus has an orbit that is almost an exact circle,
which makes it more difficult to locate the perihelion with precision.
The displacentent of spectral lines towards the red end of the spectrum was
definitely established by Adams in 1924, by observations on the dense companion
of Sirius, for which the effect is about thirty times greater than for the Sun. R.W.L.
— translator
APPENDIX IV
THE STRUCTURE OF SPACE ACCORDING TO THE GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY
(SUPPLEMENTARY TO SECTION 32)
Since the publication of the first edition of this little book, our knowledge about the
structure of space in the large (" cosmological problem ") has had an important
development, which ought to be mentioned even in a popular presentation of the
subject.
My original considerations on the subject were based on two hypotheses:
(1) There exists an average density of matter in the whole of space which is
everywhere the same and different from zero.
(2) The magnitude (" radius ") of space is independent of time.
Both these hypotheses proved to be consistent, according to the general theory of
relativity, but only after a hypothetical term was added to the field equations, a
term which was not required by the theory as such nor did it seem natural from a
theoretical point of view (" cosmological term of the field equations ").
Hypothesis (2) appeared unavoidable to me at the time, since I thought that one
would get into bottomless speculations if one departed from it.
However, already in the 'twenties, the Russian mathematician Friedman showed
that a different hypothesis was natural from a purely theoretical point of view. He
realized that it was possible to preserve hypothesis (1) without introducing the less
natural cosmological term into the field equations of gravitation, if one was ready
to drop hypothesis (2). Namely, the original field equations admit a solution in
which the " world radius " depends on time (expanding space). In that sense one
can say, according to Friedman, that the theory demands an expansion of space.
A few years later Hubble showed, by a special investigation of the extra-galactic
nebulae (" milky ways "), that the spectral lines emitted showed a red shift which
increased regularly with the distance of the nebulae. This can be interpreted in
regard to our present knowledge only in the sense of Doppler's principle, as an
expansive motion of the system of stars in the large — as required, according to
Friedman, by the field equations of gravitation. Hubble's discovery can, therefore,
be considered to some extent as a confirmation of the theory.
There does arise, however, a strange difficulty. The interpretation of the galactic
line-shift discovered by Hubble as an expansion (which can hardly be doubted from
a theoretical point of view), leads to an origin of this expansion which lies " only "
about 10^9 years ago, while physical astronomy makes it appear likely that the
development of individual stars and systems of stars takes considerably longer. It is
in no way known how this incongruity is to be overcome.
I further want to rernark that the theory of expanding space, together with the
empirical data of astronomy, permit no decision to be reached about the finite or
infinite character of (three-dimensional) space, while the original " static "
hypothesis of space yielded the closure (finiteness) of space.
K = co-ordinate system x, y = two-dimensional co-ordinates x, y, z = three-
dimensional co-ordinates x, y, z, t = four-dimensional co-ordinates
t = time I = distance v = velocity
F = force
G = gravitational field
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK, RELATIVITY ***

Albert Einstein Reference Archive

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Albert Einstein Reference Archive

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALBERT EINSTEIN REFERENCE ARCHIVE

RELATIVITY: THE SPECIAL AND GENERAL THEORY

Written: 1916 (this revised edition: 1924)

* END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK, RELATIVITY *

You might also like